This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Uncivilized Tactics at UC Irvine (Rough Cut)

Cook@Tahiti's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by Cook@Tahiti

If any issue can be relied upon to split atheists down the middle, it's the Middle East. Should we invade, bomb, occupy, send arms to, diplomatically support or sanction, some Middle Eastern countries. Or not?

How much is the west's fault? How much is the violence due to Islam? What are the respective body counts and human rights abuses? Is intentional low-tech low body-count violence more morally reprehensible than unintentional high-tech high body-count violence?

Over the 3.5 years of visiting Richard Dawkins.Net, I'm sure it's the Middle East posts that have generated the most comments, and revealed the obvious fracture lines within the atheist camp. Is western foreign policy addressing or exacerbating violence? How far back do we need to go to assign blame? The fusion of religion and nationalism, with radicalisation and feedback loops, is difficult to disentangle.

Are the official stories true (i.e. they hate our freedoms)? Is violent global jihad a core tenent of Islam? Should we be exporting democracy or secularism or Baywatch or just mind our own business? Sins of omission versus sins of commission?

Christopher Hitchens and Noam Chomsky are both atheists and yet have completely opposite conclusions. Most atheists fall somewhere in between.

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:58:00 UTC | #442501