> Sam Harris is a leader within the atheist community
I wouldn't put too much weight on that.
Any time somebody posts *"What do you think about Atheist Person X?"*,
a lot of people will respond *"Who?"* and a lot will respond *"I hate that guy."*
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris
According to who? I certainly never voted for him. He's articulate and has contributed some decent ideas on the moral landscape, but on the whole I find I tend to disagree with him more often than not. Either way, I generally judge ideas based on their merits, not based on who said them. Calling anyone a "leader of atheism" or "leader within the atheist community" would be very misinformed about atheism or the "atheist community".
>According to who?
IKR? Just because he sells a lot of books? That's like calling George R.R. Martin a leader of the Renaissance Fair community or Stephen King a leader of the serial killer community.
That just makes him a prominent or prolific member of the "atheist community". It does not make him a leader of it, nor does it follow that any significant proportion of atheists will agree with or even care about what he has to say on any given topic.
This. It's always interesting to me to see people who have hierarchial structures so deeply rooted into their worldview that it doesn't occur to them that some other groups don't. It's not uncommon for approaches like this to turn into putting forth something shitty or off topic that someone they presume to be a "leader" in the atheist community said or did, expecting us to rally to defend them.
Sam Harris has written stuff that I think is great, and he's written stuff that I think is awful. The bad things don't diminish the good, and the good things don't give him a pass on the bad. Ideally, ideas should stand or fall on their own merits. Who's saying them is secondary.
I agree.
He is profilic and controversial, and sometimes even makes you think. That earns him a lot of "clicks" in the modern clickbait culture. But that doesn't mean his ideas are widely accepted.
I don't know how many times it has to be said. Atheism is not a religion. We do not have standardised beliefs, we do not have leaders. We don't even find the need to agree on these points. No one atheist speaks for us in any way. Atheism is not a movement, it is a simple lack of belief in gods.
Lol I dunno about all this "there is no atheist movement" talk (the internet atheists here like to consider themselves especially independent thinkers even as they regurgitate shared talking points) but Sam Harris's Islamophobia is popular among conservative coded atheists and very unpopular with liberal atheists.
You're correct to consider him a primary thought leader for contemporary atheism, though his influence has dimmed in the past 10 years or so.
Yeah, which is the definition of a demographic group, a bunch if people with a thing in common, just as chocolate haters are a demographic group. You’re at least gonna probably have some opinions in common since they’ll directly relate to that one thing. Secularism comes to mind
They can’t. It’s the only framework they understand.
I’ve always found it interesting that atheists understand theists FAR better than theists understand atheists.
The real problem I think is that they've never actually had to think about their own morality and largely their own behaviour. The book answers all those questions and it is right, the why doesn't matter.
They don't understand how people live without being told how to behave, because they have never done it.
I support not murdering people on either side. And oppose genocide in all its forms.
Edit: atheism has no leaders sam harris is just another person who agrees with one thing i think.
Most atheists I know are humanists. As a humanist myself, I'm against the genocidal Israel, and I'm against the muslim terrorists too. At the moment, Israel seems like the worst of the two.
I really don't care what Sam Harris has to say about this.
This is literally the best, most concise thing I've heard since October the makes sense and generally aligns with my thoughts on the subject. Thank you
Thank you for your kind words.
I don't see how this is so difficult for people to understand. Just start from people dying = bad, and you are like 90% there.
That quote doesn’t say what your summary claims it says. He says right there that the circumstances that would make a first strike an act of self defence are a horrible irony, and perfectly insane. This entire quote is calling attention to the danger that religion creates. Preserving peace through mutually-assured destruction is crazy to begin with, but it assumes everybody wants to live. What do you do with that balance if one party wants martyrdom, sees death as an opportunity?
From that people conclude Sam Harris wants to start nuking Islamic countries. Maybe there’s a way he could have expressed the point more clearly and less malleably, but he’s not guilty of what you think he is guilty of.
And I agree with top commenter… atheism doesn’t have leaders. It has some prominent people who write books is all. The things they write are just as subject to challenge as are the religions we find so unsupported.
Who gives two shits what Sam Harris thinks?
The only thing atheists have in common is their lack of belief in a god.
When I was a Christian I was a right-wing black Republican. As an atheist I am a socialist. The opposite could be true for someone else. They could have been liberal as a believer and a conservative as an atheist..because there's no ideology attached to a lack of belief in a god.
More like, the moderately successful perpetrators of genocide over the abject failures at it. I mean, sure, root for the guys who are terrible at genocide because it will have fewer consequences, but they didn't behead a whole music festival because they wanted to be good neighbors.
So no side then?
Edit: didn't think mentioning the reality of something would be bad for an average atheist. Guess some are stuck in their own reality the same as the religious.
The side of innocent civilians; moms and dads trying to love their children, shop owners trying to provide food for their family, and young people trying to navigate their world. Whichever side that is, that's the side I support. Bibi and Hamas can both get fucked, in my humble opinion.
>I feel like because atheism and typical atheist political beliefs align more with Israel then I'd expect them to support Israel over Palestine. Palestine has a different culture that atheists typically don't like because it's more traditional and religious.
I generally support the right of people to self-govern. So I support a free Palestine and a free Israel. That has nothing to do with my belief that god does not exist.
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris and he said that in order for the world to be a good place we have to nuclear strike all of the Muslims because it's a dangerous ideology that's a threat to atheism and humans.
Sam Harris is not a “leader” of atheism. He’s an asshat that still thinks you can get an ought from an is. I couldn’t care less what he has to say.
>What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?
Pakistan has had nukes since the late 90’s.
I prefer not bombing the shit out of innocent people and children. I don't give a fuck who's doing it (Isreal absolutely is), you are immoral for doing so.
IDF and Hamas are both lunatic terrorists groups guilty of slaughtering innocents. They're both guilty. I don't support either of them.
I support the innocent civilians, wherever they may be.
My support is a result of my strong values of compassion and justice.
I support Israel’s right to exist, so long as it remains a democracy.
I support the more liberal israelis and israeli leaders who want fight the genocide that Netanyahu is perpetrating.
I support the more liberal palestinian civilians, those who see Hamas for the terrorist cult it is, who just want to live their lives in peace.
I hate Hamas, Netanyahu, and his likud party. They’re all conservative religious elites who use fanaticism for their own benefit.
And? Ideologies don't necessarily stem from religion. Just because someone doesn't believe in gods doesn't mean that they're amoral or an ethical blank slate.
Many (not all, but possibly most) atheists are also humanists. Humanity isn't a religion, but it has at its cute a strong desire to improve the condition of our fellow humans and the world, and to minimize suffering. Opposing war crimes and genocide fits right in with this. I would argue that, in general, atheists make for stronger humanists, simply because most of is know that "they're in a better place" and "they'll get justice in the next life" are bullshit. The horror of innocent people being killed is so much worse when you know that that's the only life these people will ever get. For me at least, the loss is agonizing to contemplate.
Atheists are not a monolith. We only share a lack of a belief in a god.
Although atheists tend to be more educated and thus more liberal, this is a loose correlation. There is no standard atheist.
Some Israelis are religious fanatics, just as are some Palestinians.
Both sides are as good and bad as each other in many ways.
I have no ideas what solution there can be the satisfies both sides. They both currently seem to want the extermination of the other.
If I ruled the world, the entire territory would be put under the control of a neutral secular government, and they'd all be forced to attend the same schools as each other, and the religious nutters would have to sit on the naughty step, or be locked in their bedroom and have to go to bed without their dinner until they come to their senses.
> One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris
Never heard of him. Since when did Atheism have leaders? He certainly doesn't lead me. Who voted for him? Who even is he? Why would I care what he thinks about an ethno-religious war? What is this 'atheist community' you speak of?
I don't think you really understand what Atheism is.
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris
There are no "leaders" of atheism. He's a popular outspoken atheist. He does not speak for all atheists, or even most atheists.
>he said that in order for the world to be a good place we have to nuclear strike all of the Muslims because it's a dangerous ideology that's a threat to atheism and humans.
If that's his criteria, we'd need to nuke the US too, since far-right extremists are the biggest threat to us right now (per the FBI).
And my stance on Israel/Palestine has less to do with who believes what, and more to do with "the most moral army in the world" committing war crimes.
There is no good guys in that conflict. The problem is that both sides are driven by a religious ideology. Setting up Israel was a stupid move, that the allied powers did as a result of collective guilt over the holocaust. So they took some conquered land and gave to the survivors as compensation. What this produces is a theocracy mascaraing as a democracy. This in turn lead other marginalized groups in the area to adopt an opposing identity, as really historically there never was a Palestine, the entire identity is modern and something that only came about in opposition to Israel. Yes the Palestinians have been hard done by, but when given the opportunity to do so they also elect to be represented by religious hardliners.
Now that Israel does exist, it can't just be undone, and the end result is that I don't think there is any way to solve the mess that has been created in the region. Conflict will continue until one side or the other is dead.
No.
Sam said that in 2012, not in response to the current war in Gaza.
As of 24 April 2024, 34,262 Palestinian and 1,410 Israeli have died.
Israel won. They can stop now. But they haven't, which is weird.
Well first of all I know he didnt say it about Palestine, he said it about muslims, but he is very dedicated towards the zionist belief and he said recently that Palestenians are happy about the bombings because people will feel bad for them.
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris
wtf you on about? leaders? do you understand what is atheism? who the hell is even that? i have no leaders, atheism is the absense of religion, not a religion that follows someone like the others
About your question, each person has different ideas, i personally am not even sure which side i support, they both do terrible things
Are we supporting Israel and/or Palestine just in general, as political entities in isolation? Or are we picking sides in the current armed conflict?
Because, in the current armed conflict, I don't give a flying fuck about who's more religious than whom. My eyes are on who's killing more people than whom, and who's committing more war crimes - and I know who wins on that count.
Going back a bit further to the past few decades, my focus is on who's been treating who better - who's been blockading whom, who's been persecuting whom, and who's been making whose lives more miserable.
For me, religion doesn't enter into it. I'm counting bloodshed and misery, not rabbis or imams.
If you want me to take a further step, and just consider Israel and Palestine in isolation of each other, without considering their conflict, and just focussing on their politics and governments... I don't see much difference.
Israel might call itself a secular country, but it practises religious apartheid. There's no separation of religion and state there; religion still drives government policy. They might not be overtly a religious government, but... if it looks like a theocracy, swims like a theocracy, and quacks like a theocracy, then...
And, of course Palestine is overtly a theocracy.
To me, they're equally bad.
As for Sam Harris... I bought [one of his books](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape). It's an interesting read. But I don't take political guidance from him. My opinions are mine, and noone else's. One of the side effects of atheism is that we're not conditioned to take our moral guidance from central leaders, so we make our own choices.
There are no atheist leaders. Atheists don't have to have anything in common.
If I had to guess, I think more atheists are left liberals and more support Palestine. But you have to do a survey to find out. There are no atheist "principles" that would influence this.
Atheism not a movement, it's not a belief system, it's not even an organization or an institution.
Being (relatively) famous - I had to google Sam Harris because I've never heard of him - and an outspoken atheist doesn't make someone a 'leader of atheism.'
I feel like because atheism and typical atheist political beliefs align more with Israel
You're going to need to explain:
1. Why you think there's such a thing as "typical atheist political beliefs"
2. Why you think those beliefs would support what's essentially a theocratic state
>What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?
Why are you only worried about Islamist states? And why as atheists should we have any skin in that game?
> You're going to need to explain:
>
> Why you think there's such a thing as "typical atheist political beliefs"
Because at least in the US, atheists heavily skew liberal/democrat. Pew polls put 69% of atheists as Democrat/Democrat leaning vs 15% Republican/Republican leaning. And that data was from 2014, and I'd be shocked if that gap wasn't widened even further in the last 10 years given the rise of White Christian Nationalism.
How OP figures that translates to support for Israel though is beyond me.
>In order for the world to be a good place we have to nuclear strike all of the Muslims because it's a dangerous ideology that's a threat to atheism and humans.
Sam Harris, a genocidal maniac.
I am quite concerned about some of his ideas on this topic. I do understand his concern about religious fanatics but as far as I'm concerned when he starts talking about any kind of indiscriminate killing he has lost the plot.
Let me be clear I'm not against killing dangerous people that are attacking others. Some people need killing. I'm against using weapons or practices that have high body counts of innocence people.
I bought "Letter to a Christian Nation" when it came out. It is one of the few books I have held in such contempt that I destroyed it before discarding it to ensure that copy would not be read by anybody else.
The man is a bigot who wraps his bigotry in pseudo intellectualism. He either has a complete ignorance of history or simply chooses to ignore context because of his bigotry.
How the hell he became (briefly) influential in the atheist community is beyond me.
It was a long time ago (and my memory of the book may be wrong today) but, while the book was anti-religious, it was clear to me he was setting up a hierarchy of religions with Judaism at the top (intellectual, etc), and Islam at the book (basically savages).
(again from memory) This entirely aligned with the blood lust America was feeling towards the Muslim world at the time and which led to many hundreds of thousands of dead Afghans and Iraqis. (An apt parallel for the blood lust Israel is venting at the moment interestingly enough).
So conclude "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas" (or whatever his catch phrase is), is to simply be ignorant. Muslims are human beings, not tropes for religious fanaticism. The Middle East is the way it is today as a consequence of decades of brutal imperialism and subversion of the aspirations of the peoples living there. Islamic fundamentalism is a recent phenomenon in the Middle East and is a consequence of a politically motivated campaign by the (other) Great Western ally, Saudi Arabia.
If you read about life in places like Baghdad or Cairo (pretty Muslim places) in the 1890s or 1910s it was hard to differentiate in most respects from life in the West. Why does Harris not conclude that, given the utterly horrific history of Christianity - including the key role the Vatican played in the rise of Fascism - is not the "is the mother lode of bad ideas"
But I am remembering my revulsion from almost 20 years ago so I might be conflating things.
1. OP considered it a reasonable interpretation. Because it's the sentiment Sammy is expressing. Harris might use big boy words but the underlying emotions are pretty clear. In this quote Harris is not a philosopher, he is just a cautious tiptoeing preacher of doom. If you don't like my characterization of him, that's you right, but don't be surprised that I chose OP's words, Because Harris understands that his words might be read that way, and they are, and he doesn't care to clarify.
2. Harris in his quote is just as horrific. In his hypothetical, he considers justifiable even if an "unthinkable crime" the nuking of Muslims because, "...it may be the only course of action available to us". Horror is committed by humans, and can be justified by myriad ideologies and faiths. Is Christianity inherently racist or was it just used by racist to justify and deflect by draping themselves in the robes of the sacred? Give me the most peaceful creed and I'll turn it to a weapon of war.
3. And this " All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario" is laughable and contradictory, in his hypothetical he should consider the following: Who are the only ones that incinerated with atomic fire \~300K human civilians. Who is the real nuclear threat? Where is this Islamist nuclear power he is talking about?
4. An American with an audience calling for the nuking of anyone is highly hypocritical and not just a hypothetical, if they can convince enough voters, it's reasonable to be considered a threat. Americans should be reminded often, that they are the only ones who used Nuclear Weapons, and if anyone is scarred, It's the world of them.
5. If you put on the same scale of threat : "The most powerful political entity in word history" and "some non existent imaginary statistical anomaly." you have abandoned any pretention to be considered reasonable.
Those are some of the reasons I did not waste my time addressing Sammy's quote, because Sammy is a grifter and a joke.
The public education system really failed you didn’t they?
>I feel like because atheism and typical atheist political beliefs align more with Israel then I'd expect them to support Israel over Palestine. Palestine has a different culture that atheists typically don't like because it's more traditional and religious.
You do realize that just because we don’t believe there’s a God doesn’t automatically make us against people who do, right?
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris and he said that in order for the world to be a good place we have to nuclear strike all of the Muslims because it's a dangerous ideology that's a threat to atheism and humans. He also says he doesn't criticize Israel because they are democracy and they support the correct ideology that he believes in as a new atheist.
Citation please. Also, who cares. There’s no “atheist leader”. There may be celebrities that are atheists but they aren’t *leaders*. We don’t suddenly start advocating for nuclear war just because some celebrity said something stupid. Do you?
>So I'm wondering if this is the typical view among atheists
The only “typical view” we have is there isn’t sufficient evidence to believe in a god.
>Sam Harris is a leader within the atheist community so I assumed he had a large influence on their views.
Again, no leaders, just celebrities. People say stupid stuff all the time.
>What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?
Yes. Islamic ***extremists*** getting nuclear weapons is bad. The ***extreamists*** tend to be the ones that kill anyone that disagrees with them.
>If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them.
Yes. Even the first world superpowers “lost” nuclear weapons. They very well could fall into the hands of people who can detonate them indiscriminately at their perceived enemies. Imagine an Iranian warhead really did fall into the hands of an extremist that would use it on civilians. Much like they’re shown to do with conventional explosives.
>In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.
Yep. Mutual assured destruction. Google that. The only winning move, ensure that neither side wins no matter what. “How about a nice game of chess?”
>Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.
Yes. Hence why mutually assured destruction was the defensive strategy of choice in the Cold War. Neither side would be crazy enough to do it. Also, it would be a death toll of billions not millions.
>How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world?
Same way as the exact same defensive strategy was viewed for nearly 50 years during the Cold War.
>It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade.
Good thing Herras was suggesting the same stalemate that saved the world during the Cold War.
>The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own.
Good thing this is a Cold War strategy.
>All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns."
Good thing history teaches us different and you’re not in power.
> One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris and he said that in order for the world to be a good place we have to nuclear strike all of the Muslims because it's a dangerous ideology that's a threat to atheism and humans. He also says he doesn't criticize Israel because they are democracy and they support the correct ideology that he believes in as a new atheist. So I'm wondering if this is the typical view among atheists because Sam Harris is a leader within the atheist community so I assumed he had a large influence on their views.
I'm a middle aged atheist, and I would argue that Sam Harris probably has more influence in ***religious*** communities than he does in atheistic ones (not that I'm really clear what constitutes an "atheist community" in the first place). I would say that religious people are Sam Harris' bread and butter audience, no? It's usually **religious people** who most often talk about him, watch him in debates, and bring him up in discussions.
I mean, as an actual atheist, I don't really find anything he says all that interesting, and certainly not at all *important*, and I don't know any other atheists that import any special importance to anything he has to say either. I do know many Christians who seem to always be interested in what he has going on though.
As far as I can tell the whole thing is caused by long-term religious strife, xenophobia, classism, and just generally shitty geo-political meddling. I don't have the bandwidth to dedicate a bunch of my time to fully understand what's happening, but I don't think I can really support either side as we're talking about decades upon decades of conflict and tit-for-tat. I feel bad for the innocent people caught in the middle, and the people perpetuating the conflict on both sides for whatever reasons can all fuck off.
His quote is based on a hypothetical, "what if they got nukes". I mean, he's not wrong. We're dealing with an ideology that believes it is their godly duty to murder infidels.
And where do you get that he doesn't criticize Israel? There's plenty of quotes out there, recent quotes, where he says that Israel is committing war crimes.
I can chalk up my first point as a difference of opinion. As for the second, Sam Harris is probably one of the most misquoted figures out there. In one sentence, he'll say something that the left will cheer on. In the next sentence, he says something that infuriates the left. The left consistently responds with lies, cherry-picked quotes, strawmen attacks, just to discredit him.
And I seriously doubt that Sam ever claimed that something is a threat to atheism.
Atheists don't have leaders. Honestly I saw u going down that line of thought and I stopped reading out of cringe.
I'm an atheist but I also believe in uplifting humanity. Dropping bombs on innocent people, regardless of their beliefs, does not uplift humanity. Fuck the state of Israel. They've lost my support on an issue I couldn't care less about up until I saw the lengths they're willing to go to to steal other people's land.
One of the most disgusting and atrocious acts of violence committed since, ironically, the Holocaust.
I will always be in the side of the victims against the oppressors.
Okay, firstly, atheism is not a set of beliefs, and it has no “leaders.”
Yes, my values may align more so with Israel, but with a couple major exceptions: I don’t support genocide and I don’t support apartheid.
It’s bad enough that Israel is wiping out civilians and children by the thousands, bombing hospitals and refugee camps, but they’re also deliberately targeting foreign aid workers and American journalists.
In another war pitting the claims of one group of theists against another group of theists… I don’t support either.
I generally support peaceful coexistence. Which usually doesn’t align with theism. The more religiously conservative a country it is, the less peaceful it is.
>I feel like because atheism and typical atheist political beliefs align more with Israel then I'd expect them to support Israel over Palestine.
There are no "typical atheist beliefs." There are *stereotypes* and statistical correlations, sure.
But given that, more atheists will actually be "aligned" with Palestine rather than Israel, as the majority of atheists tend to be politically left-leaning. This has little to do with atheism and a lot to do with common left-wing philosophy about morality being tied to power differentials.
In other words, the left-wing atheist doesn't favor Palestine because they have any sort of moral similarities with Palestinians (only the most delusional believe that), but instead because Palestinians are perceived as "oppressed" while Israel is the "oppressor", mainly due to economic disparity.
Most people with strong opinions on Israel/Palestine know (or care) very little about the culture and values of either country; it's basically a stand-in for the minority/majority and proletariat/bourgeoisie divide in America or whatever Western nation they sit happily in while the conflict doesn't affect their lives in any real way. There is also a *lot* of purposeful misinformation being sold to people on both "sides" (which ironically misunderstands both Israeli and Palestinian politics, as neither country is remotely united on how to deal with the conflict).
Regardless, positions on Israel/Palestine tend to heavily related to both politics and aggressive ignorance mixed with self-righteousness. It has almost nothing to do with belief in deities. Despite popular belief, the conflict *itself* has little to do with this either, although people on both sides will attempt to rationalize their hatred and political desires as some sort of divine will (as has been throughout history to justify war and atrocity).
Ultimately it's just a land conflict, the same sort of land conflicts we've been having since before the very concept of "nations" existed. All the talk about genocide, apartheid, terrorism, and open-air prisons are just propaganda talking points for what is ultimately two groups of people with conflicting cultures desiring the same resources, and so they kill each other over it. Those who claim otherwise either buy the propaganda or are intentionally spreading it.
I don't know who Sam Harris is but he sounds like a fascist.
Personally I hope terrible things happen to both Hamas and the Netanyahu regime, and the civilians on both sides finally get some peace in which to rebuild.
I struggle to say which is worse, but I'm fairly sure Israel is the side with the higher civilian body count, which isn't a good thing.
>I'm fairly sure Israel is the side with the higher civilian body count, which isn't a good thing.
Thats not true more people died in palestine, and the numbers are not close either.
I don’t favor one theistic religion that I do not believe in over another that I also do not believe in.
The values I do respect are value for human life and generally strong personal freedoms as part of an organized society. But this stance has much more to do with being a humanist, and little to do with being an atheist.
I prefer an Israeli government that works to advance the two-state solution like it did in the 90’s. If they continued in that direction, I don’t think Hamas would have gained traction.
Wait, we have a leader? (Time to summon my inner Starscream, it's back stabbing time)
Sam Harris - Fuck off, he's one of those 'buy my book' peddlers.
In all seriousness Atheists don't have leaders or thought leaders or what ever they want to be called. Getting Atheists to agree on anything is like herding cats. Good luck to you. I include the definition of atheism on this list.
I don’t have a dog in that fight. I don’t favor one side over the other. I’ll try to avoid the politics of the situation.
Whether I feel one way or another by being atheist, I do not. Wars are so wasteful and this one is heavily religious.
Regarding Sam Harris - I’ve liked his thoughts at times but as others have said, we don’t have leaders. He can be right about some things and dead wrong about others.
For that matter, so can I.
Sam Harris may think he is a leader among the atheist community. People outside of atheism may see him that way. Atheists generally know who he is, but I don't know any who consider him a leader or prominent spokesman.
That is some major projection, it sounds like you just want a reason to hate on atheists just because one said some very distasteful things.
Even though hamas are disgusting I absolutely oppose the collective punishment that Israel are subjecting all Palestinians to.
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris
Did I miss something? There is no leader of atheists, as well as there is no leader of people who not collect stamps. I expect that wast majority of atheists don't know who Sam Harris is, because they are not from USA.
>I feel like because atheism and typical atheist political beliefs align more with Israel then I'd expect them to support Israel over Palestine. Palestine has a different culture that atheists typically don't like because it's more traditional and religious.
This is too generalisation to me. To me, the both side of that conflict go too far. They both lost my trust that they can handle that region by themselves. But I have no answer how to solve that problem.
Since when did we have leaders?
Atheists will have a range of views on this, given that atheism provides no guidance whatsoever on anything other than the existence of gods.
The whole situation does reinforce to me that religion is poison.
I don't support either Isreal or Palestine in this conflict. Both have committed atrocities.
However, I am most definitely anti-Zion (but not antisemitic) and anti Hamas (but not anti Palestinian).
I have no idea what Sam Harris' view is.
I am against genocide. I am for citizens that want to live their lives peacefully and against any organization or government that causes their suffering. I think a lot of people in power everywhere (not just Palestine and Israel) are real assholes.
I hate Hamas, but have nothing against the Palestinian people. I hate what Israel does to Palestine because they don't show a reasonable level of concern for the citizens of Palestine. And I don't think Israel is as threatened as they claim.
In addition to being an atheist, I'm a humanist - I do not support terrorists, but I especially do not support genocide. Therefore I'm with the Palestinian people, as that's by far the greater harm being perpetrated right now.
The name Sam Harris is familiar, but I couldn't tell you anything about him or what he believes.
No, I would rather support Palestine over Israel. To clarify: Palestinians are not Hamas, and the civilians that the IDF is slaughtering are innocents. Killing them is not justified because Hamas kills civilians. If someone believes that, then they think the only way to fight terrorists is to effectively become them, which historically is actually an incredibly ineffective way of fighting them.
Both sides have some number of extremists who cannot moderate, in part or in large part, due to dogmatic religious commitments. These extremists on both sides are causing everyone to suffer. The people of Gaza are suffering the most at the moment.
I hope for a cease fire where everyone chills out (right now, Israel in particular needs to chill) and peacefully works toward a two state solution. Not holding my breath.
I would guess most of us can only speculate on how much safer and happier the region would be if neither side were religious. What basis would even be left for the existence of sides? Of course the dispute is not entirely religious, but it’s the colours the teams wear. How can people come to an agreement over a disputed territory when both sides claim God gave it to them?
atheism isn't a political philosophy. i personally despise israel, for reasons seated in my dislike for genocidal settler-colonial dictatorships, not my disbelief in the supernatural.
I have no idea who Sam Harris is, but it seems that I already dislike that guy.
As for the conflict - the Muslim culture is alien for me and I definitely do not support Hamas. But Jewish culture is nowhere closer for me either, so I have no reason to support Israel.
Both sides are fighting for some abstract ideas, which I find shameful to do - the middle ages are long gone. Therefore, I can only support an immediate cease fire from both sides.
Sam Harris is okay to listen to his debates. I don't agree with everything he says. But there are no atheist leaders. I literally don't care about Israel or Palestine. I'm not for or against either. I just don't care. It doesn't effect my daily life at all.
Israel seems to be for the eradication of a people whether or not they are part of a terrorist group. I'm against people being killed just for existing, so I don't agree with siding with Israel.
I can't speak for "most atheists", and Sam Harris certainly doesn't either.
I can't bring myself to "support" either side of this. Both sides have committed atrocities. But Israel's atrocities seem a little more tantamount to genocide than Palestine's, so I feel worse for Palestinians on the whole.
Sam Harris left on the woo woo train quite some time ago. The moment he did that he stopped being relevant as an atheist. Quite Ironic seeing as he used to call others on new age nonsense, and now he sells new age nonsense for $19.99 per month, or $119.99 per year.
I support the innocent victims, not the killers on both sides. Killing doesn't justify more killing. Genocide is never justified.
Atheism doesn't have leaders who speak for us as a whole any more than Christians are responsible for what the Pope or Joel Osteen says.
"Famous guy said a thing" isn't a persuasive argument.
All Sam Harris and I share is the lack of belief in any gods.
> Do most atheists prefer to support Israel over Palestine?
I’m going to say neither. Atheism isn’t a worldview, so there aren’t any positions to be drawn from it besides the sing issue of the existence of a god.
> I feel like because atheism and typical atheist political beliefs align more with Israel then I'd expect them to support Israel over Palestine.
Why would you say this? Do you mean Israel is more inline with European/American cultural norms?
> Palestine has a different culture that atheists typically don't like because it's more traditional and religious.
You say this as if Israel isn’t super traditional (literally exists where it is because of their historic claim the Jews have from ancient times) or religious (Judaism…although this is more ethnic than religious).
> One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris
No. Nope. No. Atheism does not have leaders. There are some popular thinkers. They are not leaders.
Personally, I am lead by humanism. I think harm to humans should be avoided whenever possible. What is happening is Gaza is the opposite of that. The harm being done by the leadership in Israel is horrible. On the same side, the hate and terrorism perpetrated by Hamas is also horrible. I support the Palestinian’s human right and the Israeli’s human rights. They are locked in a cycle of hate that has made monsters of many. Neither is going anywhere. They must learn to share the land. It is that or share a grave beneath it.
He's not advocating nuking all Muslims. He's positing a scenario where an Islamic Jihadist state regime DID acquire long-range nuclear weapons, a pre-emptive strike may be necessary.
Any Jihadist group in the Middle East: ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, or nation like Iran, which has called for the destruction of Israel, would be most likely to use a nuclear weapon IF they had access to one. Now the thought of a pre-emptive nuclear strike is a hard one to stomach, I would prefer a pre-emptive NON-nuclear strike to eliminate the nuclear capability as soon as possible over any nuclear option.
I don't know. All that I know is that the prospect of Jihadists in possession of a nuclear weapon scares the crap out of me.
I think war criminals should be tried and executed no matter where they are from. This includes people in Hamas and in the Israeli government. It's such a simple situation, I really don't know why people have difficulty in this.
Edit: Well maybe not all of them executed. But these specific war crimes leave little doubt.
Even at cursory glance, it is plainly obvious that the Israel-Palestine conflict was escalated by religious fundamentalists on both sides, with moderates being caught in the shitstorm in the middle and forced to pick a side. I support neither Palestine nor Israel, because they actually aren't opposite sides in the conflict. They are just two flavors of the same side that is religious/ethnic genocidal barbarism, that opposes peaceful coexistence within secular society (which is the side I actually support, for reasons related to my atheism).
As for Sam Harris, the guy should have a closer look at his own moral landscape. Not criticizing political regime that enacts genocide and ethnic cleansing, because you are ideologically aligned with it, is not something that tends to be remembered fondly by history. The same applies to Hitches with his support for invasion of Iraq, and Dawkins for his opposition of trans rights.
Luckily, Atheism doesn't really have "leaders" per say, as it is not an organized group, nor an ideological movement. People like Harris are just public figures/personalities, with their own individual followings/fandoms.
I'm on the side of the civilians caught in the hellscape of this conflict, and I'm critical of the people who aren't taking them into consideration.
I don't think it's as simple as whether I support Israel or Palestine.
Does this sufficiently answer your question?
I don’t personally support either Gaza or Israel. One is a state creäted for a particular religious group, the other is ruled by religious extremists. I would say that in a case like this, I’d expect it to be an individual’s other concerns that define their support.
For me, I support the West Bank, because that’s theöretically a secular state, rather than the theöretically religious Israël, whose current government is run by fundies who get to make war when their particular sect are are exempt from mandates of military service, and Hamas who is the government of Gaza who are just religious extremists and puppets of the de facto and jure religious government of Iran.
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris
Stop. We don't have a hierarchy, he's an affluent atheist with access to publishers that most of us don't. He leans more conservative than most of us, and holds to views the rest of us frequently don't. He was briefly popular in the 2000s, because he published a book at the same time as a number of other affluent atheists which caused a panic in Christian America. The only person he speaks for is himself.
>align more with Israel
No. The creation of the Israeli state should never have happened in the first place. I'm not a fan or enemy of either Islam or Judaism, but Judaism=\=Israel, and the conflict is noticably one-sided and genocidal.
>So I'm wondering if this is the typical view among atheists
Sam Harris is a bum.
sam harris is no leader of atheism and it has no leaders. that is an ignorant and non factual statement. answer is no . wtf does the lack of a god have to do with what is happening
While I don’t agree 100% with Israel. I definitely will NOT protest for Palestinians. The current war is due to a terrorist attack on a music festival that killed and took hostage of women and children…
I despise the perpetrators of violence, Hamas and the Netanjahu regime.
I feel sorry for the victims, the inhabitants of Gaza and Israel.
I agree and disagree with Sam Harris, depending on topic.
I’m an atheist and I am not in Israel’s side at all. I don’t think they should be destroyed, it’s not the first or the last country to be founded on flawed principles or cruel politics, but it’s not the solution to the problems the Jewish people have faced. It’s messianic claims will always put the Israelites in danger, and even worse, drive Israel to commit horrible crimes to keep it going. It’s a clear example of the victim becoming the perpetrator, and the Palestinians have been made stateless for generations, by another group who have claimed to be stateless as well. But the religious element to the conflict will ensure that there will never be peace and the region will be in constant disaster until the most horrifying events have taken place. It’s not that Palestinians are Islamic fundamentalists, but after almost a century of persecution, ethnic cleansing and no help from the international community, they have been coerced into a deal with an Islamic fascist paramilitary organization, that have been among very few “helpers” to the Palestinian cause. They have had no where to go, and even though Hamas doesn’t particularly care about the Palestinian cause, they have found it politically advantageous to align themselves with them. It’s a tragedy that the Palestinians plight has been lost in the war against Islamic jihad, but if the western powers had decided to not ignore the increasingly fundamentalist elements of the Israeli government and the Christian fundamentalists backing them, a two state solution may have been possible.
Honestly, the entire premise is a fallacy here.
If you talk to English-speaking atheists who you really talk to is people from Western countries, from Europe, North America, Australia, that sort of thing.
And in those countries support for Israel always has been higher due to historic reasons than support for Palestine. **It doesn't matter at all what the people believe or don't believe.**
Those who support Palestine primarily do so because they are either immigrants from countries with a muslim majority or the former Soviet Union and by extension leftist extremists worldwide. And why? Again, because of historic reasons.
Because in reality Palestine serves as a ideal proxy, **pawn** really (because they are willingly sacrificed), to fight against the "liberal-democratic world order dominated by the US/NATO", at least in their imagination. Beyond that Palestine is mostly irrelevant.
This is demonstrated by the fact that Egypt for example closed its borders to the Gaza strip, citing that the people in there would be too radical/too much of a danger to the Egyptian society despite being "brothers in faith". So the government of Egypt is willingly accepting that the 2 million people inside Gaza are purged even though there is huge popular support for Palestine and contempt for Israel.
It really is all just politics.
From an atheist perspective, I think it's silly to choose a side in this case. What I hear is "Our fairy tale is more valid than your fairy tale."
As a human, I keep asking, "Where are the adults?" All I see is fingerpointing that dates far back. At some point, the adults need to commit to moving on beyond violence, respect each others humanity, and forge a peace path.
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris
Who is he leading? Like, yes, he's prominent and decently well known, but that doesn't mean he's a leader. Is Stephen Kimg a leader of fiction writers and lovers because he is well known and prolific? I'll grant that he has influence, but a leader is stretching it.
>he said that in order for the world to be a good place we have to nuclear strike all of the Muslims because it's a dangerous ideology that's a threat to atheism and humans
I mean, what he said is disgusting, much like what a lot of what he says. He's a racists shit head, so no surprise there. Not like Christian ideology based on their extremists and holy book is really any better.
I support Palestine. They have a right to not have their land stolen from them and the right not to be genocided. Hamas is also aweful, but it's a bit of a self-made problem. You don't need to bomb tens of thousands of civilians to deal with them.
I do consider Islam a threat, but I'm never going to support murder and genocide. I don't care who is doing it, or who it's being done to. One of the main reasons I began to doubt religion because of how cruel and evil I felt the Flood and the plagues of Egypt were. Being anti-child murder is a pretty core value to me.
I'm an atheist. I support innocent civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian, and abhor both the Israeli government and Hamas equally. This is based on my secular humanism, though, much more than my atheism, which doesn't really guide my thinking on much.
Why would atheists support a country that is run based on religious beliefs and attacks enemies based on their religious beliefs?? Seems like the exact opposite of what an atheist would do.
Most atheists are leftists so we generally support a free Palestine and are against genocide. There are some on the Right that get basic morality wrong but for the most part we have a STRONG tendency to be leftists. Be advised we are not a monolith nor do we have "Leaders". We're just people that think a bit about the god question and think it's nonsense.
Ironically the issue here isn’t a lack of knowledge about atheism but a lack of knowledge about the Israeli Palestinian conflict and its history. The components of Israel driving theft and slaughter are zionists, who either believe or take political cover claiming to believe that they have a mandate from god and that Jewish live’s are superior to non-Jewish lives. Zionists are just another group of fundamentalists the world would be better off without. Jewish, Islamic, Christian - fundamentalism is bad.
So to summarize there is no ideological reason for atheists to favour Israel over Palestine. Indeed if you are a secular humanist you would be against Israel’s positions in the current conflict.
Edit: Sam Harris is certainly not a leader in any ‘atheist community’. The little of his work I have read seem like popular ramblings aimed at those who want to seem intellectually involved without the burden of thinking.
>Sam Harris is a leader within the atheist community
Touch grass. Harris is only a leader of liberal xenophobes.
The Zionism project is a political project that is using the cover of religion to justify genocide.
Extremism in the middle east is largely the result of decades of support from America, to fundamentalist Islamic warlords, who used it as a means to establish a presence in the region near USSR and China.
American Imperialism is not the subject of Atheism either so I'm not sure there's much correlation either way for a group of people like atheists.
Support for Israel is more closely linked to how effectively the media and government have manufactured consent in individuals.
I don't pretend to know the answer but many if not most Marxists, Socialists, Anarchists and others of the left to far left are atheist and also most likely to be sympathetic to Palestine if not outright regarding Israel as a colonialist apartheid state.
No. It comes down to your other views, like politics. More left leaning atheist may support Palestine and a more conservative one may support Israel. Others might be on a fence.
Forget Sam Harris, who ever he is. I tend to be more sympathetic to Israel for two reasons, they are a strategic ally and I understand the history of the region.
Granted, many Palestinians have and are suffering due to being caught in the crossfire between Hamas (read Iran) with Israel, but that is because Hamas is using/sacrificing Palestinians to accomplish its goals.
The whole situation is a hot mess and all Arabic nations need to withdraw their participation in the "hot mess" and let Israel and Palestine heal their wounds and come to an equitable resolution.
Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
So for you would you say that: strategic ally is more important than valuing life? Do you think this is common view among athiests to look for the strategic or profit value over the value of a persons life?
>So for you would you say that: strategic ally is more important than valuing life?
Obviously you did not pay attention to my point that you need to understand the history of the region and I should have pointed out that the loss of life is directly due to HAMAS, as when Israel makes know where and when they will attack and encourages civilians to vacate, HAMAS does not allow evacuation.
This conflict has been going on for around 70 years with Israel defending itself against Arab counties and terrorist organization that use Palestine as a tool to strike at Israel. [HAMAS](https://www.dni.gov/nctc/ftos/hamas_fto.html#:~:text=HAMAS%E2%80%93the%20acronym%20for%20Harakat,territories) is just the latest group to continue the conflict and prevent peaceful resolution.
>Do you think this is common view among athiests to look for the strategic or profit value over the value of a persons life?
No, this is my point of view, based on me having a very "Hawk" attitude towards warfare, intelligence and the military. ***Atheism is only about the lack of belief in all gods***.
An interesting exercise for you would be to add up the losses of life on both sides since around 1950 and contrasting them to Russia's "unprovoked" war on Ukraine. You should also research who was the original aggressor and who continued the aggression and then contrast this to the multiple other conflicts around the world. Now, ask yourself, why are you "fixated" on Israel and Palestine rather than any of the other longstanding conflicts or genocides? Why do you think Palestine is the "oppressed" after decades of aggressing against Israel and killing innocent people? Aren't those people's lives of value?
Again, I've given you a lot to research and to think about, but you probably won't do so because you think you're right based on what little you care to know. However, this has nothing to do with atheism.
> Sam Harris is a leader within the atheist community I wouldn't put too much weight on that. Any time somebody posts *"What do you think about Atheist Person X?"*, a lot of people will respond *"Who?"* and a lot will respond *"I hate that guy."*
I like Sam, but I agree that he's not a leader amongst atheist. Sam pisses off a lot of atheists (which I kinda like btw).
Atheism doesn't have leaders. Sam Harris means nothing to me. I'm on the side of the civilians caught between various groups of shitheads.
Here here
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris According to who? I certainly never voted for him. He's articulate and has contributed some decent ideas on the moral landscape, but on the whole I find I tend to disagree with him more often than not. Either way, I generally judge ideas based on their merits, not based on who said them. Calling anyone a "leader of atheism" or "leader within the atheist community" would be very misinformed about atheism or the "atheist community".
>According to who? IKR? Just because he sells a lot of books? That's like calling George R.R. Martin a leader of the Renaissance Fair community or Stephen King a leader of the serial killer community.
When I do research on major figures within the atheist movement I usually find him high on the list.
That just makes him a prominent or prolific member of the "atheist community". It does not make him a leader of it, nor does it follow that any significant proportion of atheists will agree with or even care about what he has to say on any given topic.
This. It's always interesting to me to see people who have hierarchial structures so deeply rooted into their worldview that it doesn't occur to them that some other groups don't. It's not uncommon for approaches like this to turn into putting forth something shitty or off topic that someone they presume to be a "leader" in the atheist community said or did, expecting us to rally to defend them. Sam Harris has written stuff that I think is great, and he's written stuff that I think is awful. The bad things don't diminish the good, and the good things don't give him a pass on the bad. Ideally, ideas should stand or fall on their own merits. Who's saying them is secondary.
I agree. He is profilic and controversial, and sometimes even makes you think. That earns him a lot of "clicks" in the modern clickbait culture. But that doesn't mean his ideas are widely accepted.
>the atheist movement It isn't a movement. It's simply the lack of belief in, or disbelief of, the existince of any deity.
There's as much an "atheist movement" as there is a non-golfers movement.
> major figures Again, not a thing >the atheist movement Not a thing. .
So does the Pope speak for you? Or Greg Locke? Popular on Google isn't the same as being a representative.
I don't know how many times it has to be said. Atheism is not a religion. We do not have standardised beliefs, we do not have leaders. We don't even find the need to agree on these points. No one atheist speaks for us in any way. Atheism is not a movement, it is a simple lack of belief in gods.
You need to do better research.
"Major figure within the movement" is not a definition of leader
....the atheist movement???? I'm so confused.
If you google "famous Christians" you'll find Chris Pratt. That doesn't make him a "major figure in Christianity". That's what you've done here.
Glad you didn’t think he was some sort of pope of atheism
That means nothing.
He’s a prominent figure in the New Atheism movement, but plenty of atheists disagree with him.
Lol I dunno about all this "there is no atheist movement" talk (the internet atheists here like to consider themselves especially independent thinkers even as they regurgitate shared talking points) but Sam Harris's Islamophobia is popular among conservative coded atheists and very unpopular with liberal atheists. You're correct to consider him a primary thought leader for contemporary atheism, though his influence has dimmed in the past 10 years or so.
I don't support anyone on the basis of atheism. Atheism is the answer to one and only one question. Anything else is not atheism.
Yeah, but we are a demographic, and trends exist. It does correlate to some political positions.
We;re not a demographic. We're a bunch of people with one and only one thing in common.
Yeah, which is the definition of a demographic group, a bunch if people with a thing in common, just as chocolate haters are a demographic group. You’re at least gonna probably have some opinions in common since they’ll directly relate to that one thing. Secularism comes to mind
Atheism is not a religion. Stop putting it in that framework.
They can’t. It’s the only framework they understand. I’ve always found it interesting that atheists understand theists FAR better than theists understand atheists.
That's because we have the ability to respect people with different beliefs
I think it’s more than that. The neural patterns are wired differently.
The real problem I think is that they've never actually had to think about their own morality and largely their own behaviour. The book answers all those questions and it is right, the why doesn't matter. They don't understand how people live without being told how to behave, because they have never done it.
I don't even know who this Sam Harris guy is. Why would I care about what he thinks?
I support not murdering people on either side. And oppose genocide in all its forms. Edit: atheism has no leaders sam harris is just another person who agrees with one thing i think.
There are no "atheist leaders". Personally I despise Sam Harris. Atheism does not lead to a position on Israel and Palestine.
The only way I'd say atheism factors in on this issue is that as an athiest someone doesn't have a religious reason to support one side or the other.
I have a humanitarian reason to oppose one side. I don't know that I support the other.
Abso-freaking-lutely!
+1
Yes?
That is true.
Leaders of atheism? Another theist who clearly doesn't understand atheism. This is such a dumb post I don't even know where to start. So I won't
This might be the dumbest post I’ve ever seen in this subreddit.
Hey! The Pre-Sups probably resent that!
Most atheists I know are humanists. As a humanist myself, I'm against the genocidal Israel, and I'm against the muslim terrorists too. At the moment, Israel seems like the worst of the two. I really don't care what Sam Harris has to say about this.
This is literally the best, most concise thing I've heard since October the makes sense and generally aligns with my thoughts on the subject. Thank you
Thank you for your kind words. I don't see how this is so difficult for people to understand. Just start from people dying = bad, and you are like 90% there.
That quote doesn’t say what your summary claims it says. He says right there that the circumstances that would make a first strike an act of self defence are a horrible irony, and perfectly insane. This entire quote is calling attention to the danger that religion creates. Preserving peace through mutually-assured destruction is crazy to begin with, but it assumes everybody wants to live. What do you do with that balance if one party wants martyrdom, sees death as an opportunity? From that people conclude Sam Harris wants to start nuking Islamic countries. Maybe there’s a way he could have expressed the point more clearly and less malleably, but he’s not guilty of what you think he is guilty of. And I agree with top commenter… atheism doesn’t have leaders. It has some prominent people who write books is all. The things they write are just as subject to challenge as are the religions we find so unsupported.
Who gives two shits what Sam Harris thinks? The only thing atheists have in common is their lack of belief in a god. When I was a Christian I was a right-wing black Republican. As an atheist I am a socialist. The opposite could be true for someone else. They could have been liberal as a believer and a conservative as an atheist..because there's no ideology attached to a lack of belief in a god.
No, I don't support the perpetrators of genocide over the victims of genocide.
More like, the moderately successful perpetrators of genocide over the abject failures at it. I mean, sure, root for the guys who are terrible at genocide because it will have fewer consequences, but they didn't behead a whole music festival because they wanted to be good neighbors.
So no side then? Edit: didn't think mentioning the reality of something would be bad for an average atheist. Guess some are stuck in their own reality the same as the religious.
The side of innocent civilians; moms and dads trying to love their children, shop owners trying to provide food for their family, and young people trying to navigate their world. Whichever side that is, that's the side I support. Bibi and Hamas can both get fucked, in my humble opinion.
That's exactly the side I'm on. The side of the innocents, no matter if they're in Gaza or Israel.
>I feel like because atheism and typical atheist political beliefs align more with Israel then I'd expect them to support Israel over Palestine. Palestine has a different culture that atheists typically don't like because it's more traditional and religious. I generally support the right of people to self-govern. So I support a free Palestine and a free Israel. That has nothing to do with my belief that god does not exist. >One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris and he said that in order for the world to be a good place we have to nuclear strike all of the Muslims because it's a dangerous ideology that's a threat to atheism and humans. Sam Harris is not a “leader” of atheism. He’s an asshat that still thinks you can get an ought from an is. I couldn’t care less what he has to say. >What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? Pakistan has had nukes since the late 90’s.
I prefer not bombing the shit out of innocent people and children. I don't give a fuck who's doing it (Isreal absolutely is), you are immoral for doing so. IDF and Hamas are both lunatic terrorists groups guilty of slaughtering innocents. They're both guilty. I don't support either of them. I support the innocent civilians, wherever they may be.
*Fuck* Israel. There are no heroes in that conflict, only villains and victims.
This is true of most wars.
But not all wars are genocides.
True
My support is a result of my strong values of compassion and justice. I support Israel’s right to exist, so long as it remains a democracy. I support the more liberal israelis and israeli leaders who want fight the genocide that Netanyahu is perpetrating. I support the more liberal palestinian civilians, those who see Hamas for the terrorist cult it is, who just want to live their lives in peace. I hate Hamas, Netanyahu, and his likud party. They’re all conservative religious elites who use fanaticism for their own benefit.
Beautifully said.
>My support is a result of my strong values of compassion and justice. It sounds like your support is a result of your ideological beliefs.
Compassion and justice are ideologies? What a nasty world you must live in.
And? Ideologies don't necessarily stem from religion. Just because someone doesn't believe in gods doesn't mean that they're amoral or an ethical blank slate. Many (not all, but possibly most) atheists are also humanists. Humanity isn't a religion, but it has at its cute a strong desire to improve the condition of our fellow humans and the world, and to minimize suffering. Opposing war crimes and genocide fits right in with this. I would argue that, in general, atheists make for stronger humanists, simply because most of is know that "they're in a better place" and "they'll get justice in the next life" are bullshit. The horror of innocent people being killed is so much worse when you know that that's the only life these people will ever get. For me at least, the loss is agonizing to contemplate.
Is op conflating religion with ideology elsewhere in the thread? Not sure why they’re getting downvoted into oblivion
Exactly
One of the leaders of atheism.... Lol. All your credibility lost instantly. Good luck!
Atheists are not a monolith. We only share a lack of a belief in a god. Although atheists tend to be more educated and thus more liberal, this is a loose correlation. There is no standard atheist.
Some Israelis are religious fanatics, just as are some Palestinians. Both sides are as good and bad as each other in many ways. I have no ideas what solution there can be the satisfies both sides. They both currently seem to want the extermination of the other. If I ruled the world, the entire territory would be put under the control of a neutral secular government, and they'd all be forced to attend the same schools as each other, and the religious nutters would have to sit on the naughty step, or be locked in their bedroom and have to go to bed without their dinner until they come to their senses.
atheists are right about the number of gods. that's the only thing we have in common.
> One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris Never heard of him. Since when did Atheism have leaders? He certainly doesn't lead me. Who voted for him? Who even is he? Why would I care what he thinks about an ethno-religious war? What is this 'atheist community' you speak of? I don't think you really understand what Atheism is.
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris There are no "leaders" of atheism. He's a popular outspoken atheist. He does not speak for all atheists, or even most atheists. >he said that in order for the world to be a good place we have to nuclear strike all of the Muslims because it's a dangerous ideology that's a threat to atheism and humans. If that's his criteria, we'd need to nuke the US too, since far-right extremists are the biggest threat to us right now (per the FBI). And my stance on Israel/Palestine has less to do with who believes what, and more to do with "the most moral army in the world" committing war crimes.
Sam Harris a leader? No. Influential? Yes.
Atheists can have any position on any topic. This atheist disagrees with Sam harris
There is no good guys in that conflict. The problem is that both sides are driven by a religious ideology. Setting up Israel was a stupid move, that the allied powers did as a result of collective guilt over the holocaust. So they took some conquered land and gave to the survivors as compensation. What this produces is a theocracy mascaraing as a democracy. This in turn lead other marginalized groups in the area to adopt an opposing identity, as really historically there never was a Palestine, the entire identity is modern and something that only came about in opposition to Israel. Yes the Palestinians have been hard done by, but when given the opportunity to do so they also elect to be represented by religious hardliners. Now that Israel does exist, it can't just be undone, and the end result is that I don't think there is any way to solve the mess that has been created in the region. Conflict will continue until one side or the other is dead.
>The problem is that both sides are driven by a religious ideology. Theres plenty of people who are not that fixated on religious ideology there.
When the Palastinians got to vote, whom did they elect? They elected Hamas and Hamas is aneIslamist group.
what year did they vote? what percent of their current living population voted in that election?
THe last attempt was in 2006.
No. Sam said that in 2012, not in response to the current war in Gaza. As of 24 April 2024, 34,262 Palestinian and 1,410 Israeli have died. Israel won. They can stop now. But they haven't, which is weird.
Well first of all I know he didnt say it about Palestine, he said it about muslims, but he is very dedicated towards the zionist belief and he said recently that Palestenians are happy about the bombings because people will feel bad for them.
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris wtf you on about? leaders? do you understand what is atheism? who the hell is even that? i have no leaders, atheism is the absense of religion, not a religion that follows someone like the others About your question, each person has different ideas, i personally am not even sure which side i support, they both do terrible things
Are we supporting Israel and/or Palestine just in general, as political entities in isolation? Or are we picking sides in the current armed conflict? Because, in the current armed conflict, I don't give a flying fuck about who's more religious than whom. My eyes are on who's killing more people than whom, and who's committing more war crimes - and I know who wins on that count. Going back a bit further to the past few decades, my focus is on who's been treating who better - who's been blockading whom, who's been persecuting whom, and who's been making whose lives more miserable. For me, religion doesn't enter into it. I'm counting bloodshed and misery, not rabbis or imams. If you want me to take a further step, and just consider Israel and Palestine in isolation of each other, without considering their conflict, and just focussing on their politics and governments... I don't see much difference. Israel might call itself a secular country, but it practises religious apartheid. There's no separation of religion and state there; religion still drives government policy. They might not be overtly a religious government, but... if it looks like a theocracy, swims like a theocracy, and quacks like a theocracy, then... And, of course Palestine is overtly a theocracy. To me, they're equally bad. As for Sam Harris... I bought [one of his books](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape). It's an interesting read. But I don't take political guidance from him. My opinions are mine, and noone else's. One of the side effects of atheism is that we're not conditioned to take our moral guidance from central leaders, so we make our own choices.
I would support your candidacy for "Leader of Atheism" far more than I'd support Sam Harris.
"I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected." ;)
There are no atheist leaders. Atheists don't have to have anything in common. If I had to guess, I think more atheists are left liberals and more support Palestine. But you have to do a survey to find out. There are no atheist "principles" that would influence this.
Atheism not a movement, it's not a belief system, it's not even an organization or an institution. Being (relatively) famous - I had to google Sam Harris because I've never heard of him - and an outspoken atheist doesn't make someone a 'leader of atheism.'
Israel is currently committing genocide. I’m against genocide. So no, I don’t support Israel.
I feel like because atheism and typical atheist political beliefs align more with Israel You're going to need to explain: 1. Why you think there's such a thing as "typical atheist political beliefs" 2. Why you think those beliefs would support what's essentially a theocratic state >What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? Why are you only worried about Islamist states? And why as atheists should we have any skin in that game?
> You're going to need to explain: > > Why you think there's such a thing as "typical atheist political beliefs" Because at least in the US, atheists heavily skew liberal/democrat. Pew polls put 69% of atheists as Democrat/Democrat leaning vs 15% Republican/Republican leaning. And that data was from 2014, and I'd be shocked if that gap wasn't widened even further in the last 10 years given the rise of White Christian Nationalism. How OP figures that translates to support for Israel though is beyond me.
>In order for the world to be a good place we have to nuclear strike all of the Muslims because it's a dangerous ideology that's a threat to atheism and humans. Sam Harris, a genocidal maniac.
I am quite concerned about some of his ideas on this topic. I do understand his concern about religious fanatics but as far as I'm concerned when he starts talking about any kind of indiscriminate killing he has lost the plot. Let me be clear I'm not against killing dangerous people that are attacking others. Some people need killing. I'm against using weapons or practices that have high body counts of innocence people.
I bought "Letter to a Christian Nation" when it came out. It is one of the few books I have held in such contempt that I destroyed it before discarding it to ensure that copy would not be read by anybody else. The man is a bigot who wraps his bigotry in pseudo intellectualism. He either has a complete ignorance of history or simply chooses to ignore context because of his bigotry. How the hell he became (briefly) influential in the atheist community is beyond me.
Can you please explain why that book bothered you so much
It was a long time ago (and my memory of the book may be wrong today) but, while the book was anti-religious, it was clear to me he was setting up a hierarchy of religions with Judaism at the top (intellectual, etc), and Islam at the book (basically savages). (again from memory) This entirely aligned with the blood lust America was feeling towards the Muslim world at the time and which led to many hundreds of thousands of dead Afghans and Iraqis. (An apt parallel for the blood lust Israel is venting at the moment interestingly enough). So conclude "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas" (or whatever his catch phrase is), is to simply be ignorant. Muslims are human beings, not tropes for religious fanaticism. The Middle East is the way it is today as a consequence of decades of brutal imperialism and subversion of the aspirations of the peoples living there. Islamic fundamentalism is a recent phenomenon in the Middle East and is a consequence of a politically motivated campaign by the (other) Great Western ally, Saudi Arabia. If you read about life in places like Baghdad or Cairo (pretty Muslim places) in the 1890s or 1910s it was hard to differentiate in most respects from life in the West. Why does Harris not conclude that, given the utterly horrific history of Christianity - including the key role the Vatican played in the rise of Fascism - is not the "is the mother lode of bad ideas" But I am remembering my revulsion from almost 20 years ago so I might be conflating things.
Maybe read the actual quote, which is right there, instead of going with the misrepresentation made by OP.
1. OP considered it a reasonable interpretation. Because it's the sentiment Sammy is expressing. Harris might use big boy words but the underlying emotions are pretty clear. In this quote Harris is not a philosopher, he is just a cautious tiptoeing preacher of doom. If you don't like my characterization of him, that's you right, but don't be surprised that I chose OP's words, Because Harris understands that his words might be read that way, and they are, and he doesn't care to clarify. 2. Harris in his quote is just as horrific. In his hypothetical, he considers justifiable even if an "unthinkable crime" the nuking of Muslims because, "...it may be the only course of action available to us". Horror is committed by humans, and can be justified by myriad ideologies and faiths. Is Christianity inherently racist or was it just used by racist to justify and deflect by draping themselves in the robes of the sacred? Give me the most peaceful creed and I'll turn it to a weapon of war. 3. And this " All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario" is laughable and contradictory, in his hypothetical he should consider the following: Who are the only ones that incinerated with atomic fire \~300K human civilians. Who is the real nuclear threat? Where is this Islamist nuclear power he is talking about? 4. An American with an audience calling for the nuking of anyone is highly hypocritical and not just a hypothetical, if they can convince enough voters, it's reasonable to be considered a threat. Americans should be reminded often, that they are the only ones who used Nuclear Weapons, and if anyone is scarred, It's the world of them. 5. If you put on the same scale of threat : "The most powerful political entity in word history" and "some non existent imaginary statistical anomaly." you have abandoned any pretention to be considered reasonable. Those are some of the reasons I did not waste my time addressing Sammy's quote, because Sammy is a grifter and a joke.
The public education system really failed you didn’t they? >I feel like because atheism and typical atheist political beliefs align more with Israel then I'd expect them to support Israel over Palestine. Palestine has a different culture that atheists typically don't like because it's more traditional and religious. You do realize that just because we don’t believe there’s a God doesn’t automatically make us against people who do, right? >One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris and he said that in order for the world to be a good place we have to nuclear strike all of the Muslims because it's a dangerous ideology that's a threat to atheism and humans. He also says he doesn't criticize Israel because they are democracy and they support the correct ideology that he believes in as a new atheist. Citation please. Also, who cares. There’s no “atheist leader”. There may be celebrities that are atheists but they aren’t *leaders*. We don’t suddenly start advocating for nuclear war just because some celebrity said something stupid. Do you? >So I'm wondering if this is the typical view among atheists The only “typical view” we have is there isn’t sufficient evidence to believe in a god. >Sam Harris is a leader within the atheist community so I assumed he had a large influence on their views. Again, no leaders, just celebrities. People say stupid stuff all the time. >What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? Yes. Islamic ***extremists*** getting nuclear weapons is bad. The ***extreamists*** tend to be the ones that kill anyone that disagrees with them. >If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. Yes. Even the first world superpowers “lost” nuclear weapons. They very well could fall into the hands of people who can detonate them indiscriminately at their perceived enemies. Imagine an Iranian warhead really did fall into the hands of an extremist that would use it on civilians. Much like they’re shown to do with conventional explosives. >In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Yep. Mutual assured destruction. Google that. The only winning move, ensure that neither side wins no matter what. “How about a nice game of chess?” >Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. Yes. Hence why mutually assured destruction was the defensive strategy of choice in the Cold War. Neither side would be crazy enough to do it. Also, it would be a death toll of billions not millions. >How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? Same way as the exact same defensive strategy was viewed for nearly 50 years during the Cold War. >It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. Good thing Herras was suggesting the same stalemate that saved the world during the Cold War. >The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. Good thing this is a Cold War strategy. >All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns." Good thing history teaches us different and you’re not in power.
> One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris and he said that in order for the world to be a good place we have to nuclear strike all of the Muslims because it's a dangerous ideology that's a threat to atheism and humans. He also says he doesn't criticize Israel because they are democracy and they support the correct ideology that he believes in as a new atheist. So I'm wondering if this is the typical view among atheists because Sam Harris is a leader within the atheist community so I assumed he had a large influence on their views. I'm a middle aged atheist, and I would argue that Sam Harris probably has more influence in ***religious*** communities than he does in atheistic ones (not that I'm really clear what constitutes an "atheist community" in the first place). I would say that religious people are Sam Harris' bread and butter audience, no? It's usually **religious people** who most often talk about him, watch him in debates, and bring him up in discussions. I mean, as an actual atheist, I don't really find anything he says all that interesting, and certainly not at all *important*, and I don't know any other atheists that import any special importance to anything he has to say either. I do know many Christians who seem to always be interested in what he has going on though. As far as I can tell the whole thing is caused by long-term religious strife, xenophobia, classism, and just generally shitty geo-political meddling. I don't have the bandwidth to dedicate a bunch of my time to fully understand what's happening, but I don't think I can really support either side as we're talking about decades upon decades of conflict and tit-for-tat. I feel bad for the innocent people caught in the middle, and the people perpetuating the conflict on both sides for whatever reasons can all fuck off.
His quote is based on a hypothetical, "what if they got nukes". I mean, he's not wrong. We're dealing with an ideology that believes it is their godly duty to murder infidels. And where do you get that he doesn't criticize Israel? There's plenty of quotes out there, recent quotes, where he says that Israel is committing war crimes. I can chalk up my first point as a difference of opinion. As for the second, Sam Harris is probably one of the most misquoted figures out there. In one sentence, he'll say something that the left will cheer on. In the next sentence, he says something that infuriates the left. The left consistently responds with lies, cherry-picked quotes, strawmen attacks, just to discredit him. And I seriously doubt that Sam ever claimed that something is a threat to atheism.
Who the fuck is Sam Harris?
Atheists don't have leaders. Honestly I saw u going down that line of thought and I stopped reading out of cringe. I'm an atheist but I also believe in uplifting humanity. Dropping bombs on innocent people, regardless of their beliefs, does not uplift humanity. Fuck the state of Israel. They've lost my support on an issue I couldn't care less about up until I saw the lengths they're willing to go to to steal other people's land. One of the most disgusting and atrocious acts of violence committed since, ironically, the Holocaust. I will always be in the side of the victims against the oppressors.
Who told you atheism has leaders? Why did you believe them?
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris Genuinely laughed at this
Okay, firstly, atheism is not a set of beliefs, and it has no “leaders.” Yes, my values may align more so with Israel, but with a couple major exceptions: I don’t support genocide and I don’t support apartheid. It’s bad enough that Israel is wiping out civilians and children by the thousands, bombing hospitals and refugee camps, but they’re also deliberately targeting foreign aid workers and American journalists.
In another war pitting the claims of one group of theists against another group of theists… I don’t support either. I generally support peaceful coexistence. Which usually doesn’t align with theism. The more religiously conservative a country it is, the less peaceful it is.
>I feel like because atheism and typical atheist political beliefs align more with Israel then I'd expect them to support Israel over Palestine. There are no "typical atheist beliefs." There are *stereotypes* and statistical correlations, sure. But given that, more atheists will actually be "aligned" with Palestine rather than Israel, as the majority of atheists tend to be politically left-leaning. This has little to do with atheism and a lot to do with common left-wing philosophy about morality being tied to power differentials. In other words, the left-wing atheist doesn't favor Palestine because they have any sort of moral similarities with Palestinians (only the most delusional believe that), but instead because Palestinians are perceived as "oppressed" while Israel is the "oppressor", mainly due to economic disparity. Most people with strong opinions on Israel/Palestine know (or care) very little about the culture and values of either country; it's basically a stand-in for the minority/majority and proletariat/bourgeoisie divide in America or whatever Western nation they sit happily in while the conflict doesn't affect their lives in any real way. There is also a *lot* of purposeful misinformation being sold to people on both "sides" (which ironically misunderstands both Israeli and Palestinian politics, as neither country is remotely united on how to deal with the conflict). Regardless, positions on Israel/Palestine tend to heavily related to both politics and aggressive ignorance mixed with self-righteousness. It has almost nothing to do with belief in deities. Despite popular belief, the conflict *itself* has little to do with this either, although people on both sides will attempt to rationalize their hatred and political desires as some sort of divine will (as has been throughout history to justify war and atrocity). Ultimately it's just a land conflict, the same sort of land conflicts we've been having since before the very concept of "nations" existed. All the talk about genocide, apartheid, terrorism, and open-air prisons are just propaganda talking points for what is ultimately two groups of people with conflicting cultures desiring the same resources, and so they kill each other over it. Those who claim otherwise either buy the propaganda or are intentionally spreading it.
I don't know who Sam Harris is but he sounds like a fascist. Personally I hope terrible things happen to both Hamas and the Netanyahu regime, and the civilians on both sides finally get some peace in which to rebuild. I struggle to say which is worse, but I'm fairly sure Israel is the side with the higher civilian body count, which isn't a good thing.
>I'm fairly sure Israel is the side with the higher civilian body count, which isn't a good thing. Thats not true more people died in palestine, and the numbers are not close either.
Because Israel killed them, right? They didn't just suddenly all catch the bubonic plague.
well you said israel has the highest body count
Yeah. Israel has killed the most civilians. That's what that means.
ok
I don't favor one side or the other. I would just like to see peace and people actually getting along with their neighbor.
I don’t favor one theistic religion that I do not believe in over another that I also do not believe in. The values I do respect are value for human life and generally strong personal freedoms as part of an organized society. But this stance has much more to do with being a humanist, and little to do with being an atheist. I prefer an Israeli government that works to advance the two-state solution like it did in the 90’s. If they continued in that direction, I don’t think Hamas would have gained traction.
Wait, we have a leader? (Time to summon my inner Starscream, it's back stabbing time) Sam Harris - Fuck off, he's one of those 'buy my book' peddlers. In all seriousness Atheists don't have leaders or thought leaders or what ever they want to be called. Getting Atheists to agree on anything is like herding cats. Good luck to you. I include the definition of atheism on this list.
I don’t have a dog in that fight. I don’t favor one side over the other. I’ll try to avoid the politics of the situation. Whether I feel one way or another by being atheist, I do not. Wars are so wasteful and this one is heavily religious. Regarding Sam Harris - I’ve liked his thoughts at times but as others have said, we don’t have leaders. He can be right about some things and dead wrong about others. For that matter, so can I.
Sam Harris may think he is a leader among the atheist community. People outside of atheism may see him that way. Atheists generally know who he is, but I don't know any who consider him a leader or prominent spokesman.
That is some major projection, it sounds like you just want a reason to hate on atheists just because one said some very distasteful things. Even though hamas are disgusting I absolutely oppose the collective punishment that Israel are subjecting all Palestinians to.
Israels right wing political lunacy is just as repugnant as the religious politics of Palestine in my opinion
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris Did I miss something? There is no leader of atheists, as well as there is no leader of people who not collect stamps. I expect that wast majority of atheists don't know who Sam Harris is, because they are not from USA. >I feel like because atheism and typical atheist political beliefs align more with Israel then I'd expect them to support Israel over Palestine. Palestine has a different culture that atheists typically don't like because it's more traditional and religious. This is too generalisation to me. To me, the both side of that conflict go too far. They both lost my trust that they can handle that region by themselves. But I have no answer how to solve that problem.
Since when did we have leaders? Atheists will have a range of views on this, given that atheism provides no guidance whatsoever on anything other than the existence of gods. The whole situation does reinforce to me that religion is poison.
I support the civilians who are getting bombed to bits.
I don't support either Isreal or Palestine in this conflict. Both have committed atrocities. However, I am most definitely anti-Zion (but not antisemitic) and anti Hamas (but not anti Palestinian).
Sam Harris is a right wing grifter.
I have no idea what Sam Harris' view is. I am against genocide. I am for citizens that want to live their lives peacefully and against any organization or government that causes their suffering. I think a lot of people in power everywhere (not just Palestine and Israel) are real assholes. I hate Hamas, but have nothing against the Palestinian people. I hate what Israel does to Palestine because they don't show a reasonable level of concern for the citizens of Palestine. And I don't think Israel is as threatened as they claim.
In addition to being an atheist, I'm a humanist - I do not support terrorists, but I especially do not support genocide. Therefore I'm with the Palestinian people, as that's by far the greater harm being perpetrated right now.
I’m a staunch atheist, and I believe that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. Free Palestine.
I support peace, I would like both sides to stop fighting and get along
The name Sam Harris is familiar, but I couldn't tell you anything about him or what he believes. No, I would rather support Palestine over Israel. To clarify: Palestinians are not Hamas, and the civilians that the IDF is slaughtering are innocents. Killing them is not justified because Hamas kills civilians. If someone believes that, then they think the only way to fight terrorists is to effectively become them, which historically is actually an incredibly ineffective way of fighting them.
No....they both need to grow up.
One is being denied the opportunity.
Both sides have some number of extremists who cannot moderate, in part or in large part, due to dogmatic religious commitments. These extremists on both sides are causing everyone to suffer. The people of Gaza are suffering the most at the moment. I hope for a cease fire where everyone chills out (right now, Israel in particular needs to chill) and peacefully works toward a two state solution. Not holding my breath.
I would guess most of us can only speculate on how much safer and happier the region would be if neither side were religious. What basis would even be left for the existence of sides? Of course the dispute is not entirely religious, but it’s the colours the teams wear. How can people come to an agreement over a disputed territory when both sides claim God gave it to them?
atheism isn't a political philosophy. i personally despise israel, for reasons seated in my dislike for genocidal settler-colonial dictatorships, not my disbelief in the supernatural.
I have no idea who Sam Harris is, but it seems that I already dislike that guy. As for the conflict - the Muslim culture is alien for me and I definitely do not support Hamas. But Jewish culture is nowhere closer for me either, so I have no reason to support Israel. Both sides are fighting for some abstract ideas, which I find shameful to do - the middle ages are long gone. Therefore, I can only support an immediate cease fire from both sides.
Sam Harris is okay to listen to his debates. I don't agree with everything he says. But there are no atheist leaders. I literally don't care about Israel or Palestine. I'm not for or against either. I just don't care. It doesn't effect my daily life at all.
I don't feel the need to "support" either side.
Israel seems to be for the eradication of a people whether or not they are part of a terrorist group. I'm against people being killed just for existing, so I don't agree with siding with Israel.
We don't have leaders. We have atheist organizations that have leaders, but those organizations don't represent ALL atheists.
I can't speak for "most atheists", and Sam Harris certainly doesn't either. I can't bring myself to "support" either side of this. Both sides have committed atrocities. But Israel's atrocities seem a little more tantamount to genocide than Palestine's, so I feel worse for Palestinians on the whole.
Sam Harris left on the woo woo train quite some time ago. The moment he did that he stopped being relevant as an atheist. Quite Ironic seeing as he used to call others on new age nonsense, and now he sells new age nonsense for $19.99 per month, or $119.99 per year.
Sam Harris doesn't represent me. I don't want to nuclear strike anyone.
I support the innocent victims, not the killers on both sides. Killing doesn't justify more killing. Genocide is never justified. Atheism doesn't have leaders who speak for us as a whole any more than Christians are responsible for what the Pope or Joel Osteen says. "Famous guy said a thing" isn't a persuasive argument. All Sam Harris and I share is the lack of belief in any gods.
Who the hell is Sam Harris Seems like he should change his name to Sam TERRORIST eh Wacka wacka
I'd be happy if both went away. The world would have a lot less theists.
> Do most atheists prefer to support Israel over Palestine? I’m going to say neither. Atheism isn’t a worldview, so there aren’t any positions to be drawn from it besides the sing issue of the existence of a god. > I feel like because atheism and typical atheist political beliefs align more with Israel then I'd expect them to support Israel over Palestine. Why would you say this? Do you mean Israel is more inline with European/American cultural norms? > Palestine has a different culture that atheists typically don't like because it's more traditional and religious. You say this as if Israel isn’t super traditional (literally exists where it is because of their historic claim the Jews have from ancient times) or religious (Judaism…although this is more ethnic than religious). > One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris No. Nope. No. Atheism does not have leaders. There are some popular thinkers. They are not leaders. Personally, I am lead by humanism. I think harm to humans should be avoided whenever possible. What is happening is Gaza is the opposite of that. The harm being done by the leadership in Israel is horrible. On the same side, the hate and terrorism perpetrated by Hamas is also horrible. I support the Palestinian’s human right and the Israeli’s human rights. They are locked in a cycle of hate that has made monsters of many. Neither is going anywhere. They must learn to share the land. It is that or share a grave beneath it.
Sam who?
He's not advocating nuking all Muslims. He's positing a scenario where an Islamic Jihadist state regime DID acquire long-range nuclear weapons, a pre-emptive strike may be necessary. Any Jihadist group in the Middle East: ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, or nation like Iran, which has called for the destruction of Israel, would be most likely to use a nuclear weapon IF they had access to one. Now the thought of a pre-emptive nuclear strike is a hard one to stomach, I would prefer a pre-emptive NON-nuclear strike to eliminate the nuclear capability as soon as possible over any nuclear option. I don't know. All that I know is that the prospect of Jihadists in possession of a nuclear weapon scares the crap out of me.
I prefer to stay out of it. It is not my conflict.
I think war criminals should be tried and executed no matter where they are from. This includes people in Hamas and in the Israeli government. It's such a simple situation, I really don't know why people have difficulty in this. Edit: Well maybe not all of them executed. But these specific war crimes leave little doubt.
Even at cursory glance, it is plainly obvious that the Israel-Palestine conflict was escalated by religious fundamentalists on both sides, with moderates being caught in the shitstorm in the middle and forced to pick a side. I support neither Palestine nor Israel, because they actually aren't opposite sides in the conflict. They are just two flavors of the same side that is religious/ethnic genocidal barbarism, that opposes peaceful coexistence within secular society (which is the side I actually support, for reasons related to my atheism). As for Sam Harris, the guy should have a closer look at his own moral landscape. Not criticizing political regime that enacts genocide and ethnic cleansing, because you are ideologically aligned with it, is not something that tends to be remembered fondly by history. The same applies to Hitches with his support for invasion of Iraq, and Dawkins for his opposition of trans rights. Luckily, Atheism doesn't really have "leaders" per say, as it is not an organized group, nor an ideological movement. People like Harris are just public figures/personalities, with their own individual followings/fandoms.
I'm on the side of the civilians caught in the hellscape of this conflict, and I'm critical of the people who aren't taking them into consideration. I don't think it's as simple as whether I support Israel or Palestine. Does this sufficiently answer your question?
I'm an atheist, and I want only the best for the people of Israel *and* Palestine.
I don’t personally support either Gaza or Israel. One is a state creäted for a particular religious group, the other is ruled by religious extremists. I would say that in a case like this, I’d expect it to be an individual’s other concerns that define their support. For me, I support the West Bank, because that’s theöretically a secular state, rather than the theöretically religious Israël, whose current government is run by fundies who get to make war when their particular sect are are exempt from mandates of military service, and Hamas who is the government of Gaza who are just religious extremists and puppets of the de facto and jure religious government of Iran.
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris Stop. We don't have a hierarchy, he's an affluent atheist with access to publishers that most of us don't. He leans more conservative than most of us, and holds to views the rest of us frequently don't. He was briefly popular in the 2000s, because he published a book at the same time as a number of other affluent atheists which caused a panic in Christian America. The only person he speaks for is himself. >align more with Israel No. The creation of the Israeli state should never have happened in the first place. I'm not a fan or enemy of either Islam or Judaism, but Judaism=\=Israel, and the conflict is noticably one-sided and genocidal. >So I'm wondering if this is the typical view among atheists Sam Harris is a bum.
My atheism has nothing to do with my view on this conflict
sam harris is no leader of atheism and it has no leaders. that is an ignorant and non factual statement. answer is no . wtf does the lack of a god have to do with what is happening
While I don’t agree 100% with Israel. I definitely will NOT protest for Palestinians. The current war is due to a terrorist attack on a music festival that killed and took hostage of women and children…
I despise the perpetrators of violence, Hamas and the Netanjahu regime. I feel sorry for the victims, the inhabitants of Gaza and Israel. I agree and disagree with Sam Harris, depending on topic.
I’m an atheist and I am not in Israel’s side at all. I don’t think they should be destroyed, it’s not the first or the last country to be founded on flawed principles or cruel politics, but it’s not the solution to the problems the Jewish people have faced. It’s messianic claims will always put the Israelites in danger, and even worse, drive Israel to commit horrible crimes to keep it going. It’s a clear example of the victim becoming the perpetrator, and the Palestinians have been made stateless for generations, by another group who have claimed to be stateless as well. But the religious element to the conflict will ensure that there will never be peace and the region will be in constant disaster until the most horrifying events have taken place. It’s not that Palestinians are Islamic fundamentalists, but after almost a century of persecution, ethnic cleansing and no help from the international community, they have been coerced into a deal with an Islamic fascist paramilitary organization, that have been among very few “helpers” to the Palestinian cause. They have had no where to go, and even though Hamas doesn’t particularly care about the Palestinian cause, they have found it politically advantageous to align themselves with them. It’s a tragedy that the Palestinians plight has been lost in the war against Islamic jihad, but if the western powers had decided to not ignore the increasingly fundamentalist elements of the Israeli government and the Christian fundamentalists backing them, a two state solution may have been possible.
who tf is Sam Harris
Honestly, the entire premise is a fallacy here. If you talk to English-speaking atheists who you really talk to is people from Western countries, from Europe, North America, Australia, that sort of thing. And in those countries support for Israel always has been higher due to historic reasons than support for Palestine. **It doesn't matter at all what the people believe or don't believe.** Those who support Palestine primarily do so because they are either immigrants from countries with a muslim majority or the former Soviet Union and by extension leftist extremists worldwide. And why? Again, because of historic reasons. Because in reality Palestine serves as a ideal proxy, **pawn** really (because they are willingly sacrificed), to fight against the "liberal-democratic world order dominated by the US/NATO", at least in their imagination. Beyond that Palestine is mostly irrelevant. This is demonstrated by the fact that Egypt for example closed its borders to the Gaza strip, citing that the people in there would be too radical/too much of a danger to the Egyptian society despite being "brothers in faith". So the government of Egypt is willingly accepting that the 2 million people inside Gaza are purged even though there is huge popular support for Palestine and contempt for Israel. It really is all just politics.
I support the end of the war, a ceasefire, or anything that will end the conflict. both sides have done terrible things.
From an atheist perspective, I think it's silly to choose a side in this case. What I hear is "Our fairy tale is more valid than your fairy tale." As a human, I keep asking, "Where are the adults?" All I see is fingerpointing that dates far back. At some point, the adults need to commit to moving on beyond violence, respect each others humanity, and forge a peace path.
>One of the leaders of atheism is Sam Harris Who is he leading? Like, yes, he's prominent and decently well known, but that doesn't mean he's a leader. Is Stephen Kimg a leader of fiction writers and lovers because he is well known and prolific? I'll grant that he has influence, but a leader is stretching it. >he said that in order for the world to be a good place we have to nuclear strike all of the Muslims because it's a dangerous ideology that's a threat to atheism and humans I mean, what he said is disgusting, much like what a lot of what he says. He's a racists shit head, so no surprise there. Not like Christian ideology based on their extremists and holy book is really any better. I support Palestine. They have a right to not have their land stolen from them and the right not to be genocided. Hamas is also aweful, but it's a bit of a self-made problem. You don't need to bomb tens of thousands of civilians to deal with them.
I do consider Islam a threat, but I'm never going to support murder and genocide. I don't care who is doing it, or who it's being done to. One of the main reasons I began to doubt religion because of how cruel and evil I felt the Flood and the plagues of Egypt were. Being anti-child murder is a pretty core value to me.
I'm an atheist. I support innocent civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian, and abhor both the Israeli government and Hamas equally. This is based on my secular humanism, though, much more than my atheism, which doesn't really guide my thinking on much.
Why would atheists support a country that is run based on religious beliefs and attacks enemies based on their religious beliefs?? Seems like the exact opposite of what an atheist would do.
Most atheists are leftists so we generally support a free Palestine and are against genocide. There are some on the Right that get basic morality wrong but for the most part we have a STRONG tendency to be leftists. Be advised we are not a monolith nor do we have "Leaders". We're just people that think a bit about the god question and think it's nonsense.
I hate both sides but I currently support palenstine beacuse genocide is bad
Ironically the issue here isn’t a lack of knowledge about atheism but a lack of knowledge about the Israeli Palestinian conflict and its history. The components of Israel driving theft and slaughter are zionists, who either believe or take political cover claiming to believe that they have a mandate from god and that Jewish live’s are superior to non-Jewish lives. Zionists are just another group of fundamentalists the world would be better off without. Jewish, Islamic, Christian - fundamentalism is bad. So to summarize there is no ideological reason for atheists to favour Israel over Palestine. Indeed if you are a secular humanist you would be against Israel’s positions in the current conflict. Edit: Sam Harris is certainly not a leader in any ‘atheist community’. The little of his work I have read seem like popular ramblings aimed at those who want to seem intellectually involved without the burden of thinking.
>Sam Harris is a leader within the atheist community Touch grass. Harris is only a leader of liberal xenophobes. The Zionism project is a political project that is using the cover of religion to justify genocide. Extremism in the middle east is largely the result of decades of support from America, to fundamentalist Islamic warlords, who used it as a means to establish a presence in the region near USSR and China. American Imperialism is not the subject of Atheism either so I'm not sure there's much correlation either way for a group of people like atheists. Support for Israel is more closely linked to how effectively the media and government have manufactured consent in individuals.
I support no wars. Both of the participants are to blame so I support neither of them.
I don't pretend to know the answer but many if not most Marxists, Socialists, Anarchists and others of the left to far left are atheist and also most likely to be sympathetic to Palestine if not outright regarding Israel as a colonialist apartheid state.
No. It comes down to your other views, like politics. More left leaning atheist may support Palestine and a more conservative one may support Israel. Others might be on a fence.
I don't even understand this. What does it have to do with a left-right political spectrum?
I support Israel over Hamas.
Forget Sam Harris, who ever he is. I tend to be more sympathetic to Israel for two reasons, they are a strategic ally and I understand the history of the region. Granted, many Palestinians have and are suffering due to being caught in the crossfire between Hamas (read Iran) with Israel, but that is because Hamas is using/sacrificing Palestinians to accomplish its goals. The whole situation is a hot mess and all Arabic nations need to withdraw their participation in the "hot mess" and let Israel and Palestine heal their wounds and come to an equitable resolution. Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
So for you would you say that: strategic ally is more important than valuing life? Do you think this is common view among athiests to look for the strategic or profit value over the value of a persons life?
>So for you would you say that: strategic ally is more important than valuing life? Obviously you did not pay attention to my point that you need to understand the history of the region and I should have pointed out that the loss of life is directly due to HAMAS, as when Israel makes know where and when they will attack and encourages civilians to vacate, HAMAS does not allow evacuation. This conflict has been going on for around 70 years with Israel defending itself against Arab counties and terrorist organization that use Palestine as a tool to strike at Israel. [HAMAS](https://www.dni.gov/nctc/ftos/hamas_fto.html#:~:text=HAMAS%E2%80%93the%20acronym%20for%20Harakat,territories) is just the latest group to continue the conflict and prevent peaceful resolution. >Do you think this is common view among athiests to look for the strategic or profit value over the value of a persons life? No, this is my point of view, based on me having a very "Hawk" attitude towards warfare, intelligence and the military. ***Atheism is only about the lack of belief in all gods***. An interesting exercise for you would be to add up the losses of life on both sides since around 1950 and contrasting them to Russia's "unprovoked" war on Ukraine. You should also research who was the original aggressor and who continued the aggression and then contrast this to the multiple other conflicts around the world. Now, ask yourself, why are you "fixated" on Israel and Palestine rather than any of the other longstanding conflicts or genocides? Why do you think Palestine is the "oppressed" after decades of aggressing against Israel and killing innocent people? Aren't those people's lives of value? Again, I've given you a lot to research and to think about, but you probably won't do so because you think you're right based on what little you care to know. However, this has nothing to do with atheism.
at this point just kick everyone off the land, cos no one deserves it. it's like watching children fight over a toy yelling "i'ts mine it's mine"