Norway bomber cites Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Norway bomber cites Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

So I came across a blog entry from Sam Harris about the Nordic bomber/shooter.

 

 

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/christian-terrorism-and-islamophobia/

 

 

Sam Harris wrote:

I have written a fair amount about the threat that Islam poses to open societies, but I am happy to say that Breivik appears never to have heard of me. He has, however, digested the opinions of many writers who share my general concerns—Theodore Dalrymple, Robert D. Kaplan, Lee Harris, Ibn Warraq, Bernard Lewis, Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat, Daniel Pipes, Bat Ye’or, Mark Steyn, Samuel Huntington, et al.

 

 

and this

 

Sam Harris wrote:

He even singles out my friend and colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali for special praise, repeatedly quoting a blogger who thinks she deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. With a friend like Breivik, one will never want for enemies.

 

 

Is this true? Who are the people listed? I never heard of any of them.

 

Another thing that is getting my mind, is the role of idealogies. How much of the above people do you think played a role in fueling Ander's convictions?

 

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I've heard of half of them

 

They contend fundamentalist islam is a threat to western secularism and are openly critical of islamic doctrine, including sharia, dhimmitude, and a failure to separate church and state. At least 2 of those folks are former muslims. 

None of them advocates violence just vigilance and a more robust secularism. For my part I agree with them all - fundamentalist islam is a threat to the west. And so are nutbags like Breivik.  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, the only name on that

Well, the only name on that list (apart from Ayaan hirsi Ali) is Ibn Warraq. That is a pen name for a man, probably from Pakistan. Nobody knows for sure.

 

He is an atheist from the middle east and his real identity is a deep dark secret out of fear for the safety of himself and his family. He is also an author critical of Islam in every form. He has been doing that for roughly 20 years and even pictures of him did not show, even on his own web site until about 4 years ago when he stood openly at the UN. He has since shown up at the Hague standing next to Salman Rushdie.

 

Curiously, his page on wikipedia mentions one William Dalyrimple who might be a hit. He is the son of a Scottish nobleman and lives in India where he writes extensively about events in the middle east. Out of curiosity, I checked for Theodore Dalyrimple and that goes to the pen name of an unrelated retired psychiatrist who is an atheist and writes on culture but generally not on the middle east.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Well he is a fucking idiot,

Well he is a fucking idiot, on top of being a monster.

I doubt Ayaan while rightfully, as Hitchens would does as well, going after the backwoods assholes who slam planes into buildings would condone what this fuck wad did.

So this moron quoted her. This moron is nothing but the Christian version of Taliban and too bad Seal Team 6 wasn't on that Island to stop him.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
This guy seems to have been

This guy seems to have been inspired by the idealogy of the Old testament God, and the thinking behind the Crusades. He wrote a long treatise about the Crusades.

The Crusades were directed at rescuing the 'Holy Land' from the Muslims - the parallels to his perception of the 'invasion' of his homeland are obvious.

And he was inspired by the OT God's standard response to 'sin' in a community, ie flood them, send them a volcano or earthquake, whatever it takes to scare the shit out of them, killing as many as he can in the process to ram the point home. And 'command' his people to join in the carnage.

The other references are clearly to anyone who had written anything against Islam, to support his views of it. But his action was purely OT Biblical in inspiration, and its his actions which are to be condemned, which he has to answer for, not so much his thoughts, however batshit crazy.

He is a classic medieval Christian. Blame the f**king religion for once, for at least the major part of his ideas, Capn.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
He just went the (by

He just went the (by far) extremist route on something I would in general agree with.

As in all political business the extremists never actually solve anything and generally add to the problem. He has made the problem even worse by playing the part of a terrorist and given his cause a very very bad name. I think this could cause a backlash and actually convince some people that perhaps islam isn't so bad if the people on the other side are willing to pull off what he did.

 

Either there is too little actual moderation or not enough of them speak out.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I too am very uncomfortable

I too am very uncomfortable with Islamic intrusion into our life - I see burkhas frequently when I go for a walk or to the local supermarket .

But this guy's reaction is entirely the wrong way to address the issue. IOW be even a bigger asshole to muslims than they might be to us.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:This guy

BobSpence1 wrote:

This guy seems to have been inspired by the idealogy of the Old testament God, and the thinking behind the Crusades. He wrote a long treatise about the Crusades.

The Crusades were directed at rescuing the 'Holy Land' from the Muslims - the parallels to his perception of the 'invasion' of his homeland are obvious.

And he was inspired by the OT God's standard response to 'sin' in a community, ie flood them, send them a volcano or earthquake, whatever it takes to scare the shit out of them, killing as many as he can in the process to ram the point home. And 'command' his people to join in the carnage.

The other references are clearly to anyone who had written anything against Islam, to support his views of it. But his action was purely OT Biblical in inspiration, and its his actions which are to be condemned, which he has to answer for, not so much his thoughts, however batshit crazy.

He is a classic medieval Christian. Blame the f**king religion for once, for at least the major part of his ideas, Capn.

 

Have you read the link to Sam Harris' blog?

 

Sam Harris wrote:

 

It has been widely reported that Breivik is a “Christian fundamentalist.” Having read parts of his 1500-page manifesto (2083: A European Declaration of Independence), I must say that I have my doubts. These do not appear to be the ruminations of an especially committed Christian:

 

 

Ander wrote:

I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. In the past, I remember I used to think;

“Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higher power if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic.”

Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state f example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I’ll say directly that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet… But I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me with the intention to stop and/or kill. I know there is a 80%+ chance I am going to die during the operation as I have no intention to surrender to them until I have completed all three primary objectives AND the bonus mission. When I initiate (providing I haven’t been apprehended before then), there is a 70% chance that I will complete the first objective, 40% for the second, 20% for the third and less than 5% chance that I will be able to complete the bonus mission. It is likely that I will pray to God for strength at one point during that operation, as I think most people in that situation would….If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out… If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past. (p. 1344)

 

 

 

But the point is the role of idelogies have on actions. I have yet to see a consistent way to determine that.

 

For example, what if he was just quoting Christians who happened to agree with him? Why does that only apply to when he cites atheists and not Christians?

 

The standard seems to be "If I agree with it, it didn't cause violence."

 

 


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
The thing is that, yes,

The thing is that, yes, words from otherwise sane people can drive the insane to act. There is a case to be made for the "war rhetoric" of some more conservative and christian people being partly responsible, but I've never heard Ms. Ali or Mr. Harris or Mr. Warraq using that warlike language. I've not seen a "don't retreat, reload" tweet from any of them, nor an essay about how we're fighting a war with islam that didn't specify it is purely an ideological war. Christians and conservatives regularly use that us vs. them war language and display that mentality, and too often assume that we assume they mean a non-violent war.

I definitely don't blame anyone Breivik might have been "inspired by" if they themselves didn't advocate violence. However, it can be quite easy to mistake some people's messages as inciting violence or hatred, and that can't be said for the atheists mentioned. On top of that, however, is the fact that if Breivik did listen to Ali, he didn't pay much attention. He's a rabidly anti-immigrant white nationalist, she's a black woman who immigrated to Europe from Africa. She clearly wouldn't support or like him, even if they agreed on everything but that one issue.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote:The

BenfromCanada wrote:

The thing is that, yes, words from otherwise sane people can drive the insane to act. There is a case to be made for the "war rhetoric" of some more conservative and christian people being partly responsible, but I've never heard Ms. Ali or Mr. Harris or Mr. Warraq using that warlike language. I've not seen a "don't retreat, reload" tweet from any of them, nor an essay about how we're fighting a war with islam that didn't specify it is purely an ideological war. Christians and conservatives regularly use that us vs. them war language and display that mentality, and too often assume that we assume they mean a non-violent war.

I definitely don't blame anyone Breivik might have been "inspired by" if they themselves didn't advocate violence. However, it can be quite easy to mistake some people's messages as inciting violence or hatred, and that can't be said for the atheists mentioned. On top of that, however, is the fact that if Breivik did listen to Ali, he didn't pay much attention. He's a rabidly anti-immigrant white nationalist, she's a black woman who immigrated to Europe from Africa. She clearly wouldn't support or like him, even if they agreed on everything but that one issue.

 

Actually, Chris Hitchens has held a rather firm pro-war stance including bombing Iran etc...

 

 

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/04/1031115884039.html

Chris Hitchens wrote:

 

It is … impossible to compromise with the stone-faced propagandists for Bronze Age morality: morons and philistines who hate Darwin and Einstein and managed, during their brief rule in Afghanistan, to ban and erase music and art while cultivating the skills of germ warfare. If they could do that to Afghans, what might they not have in mind for us? In confronting such people, the crucial thing is to be willing and able, if not in fact eager, to kill them without pity before they get started.

 

 

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Capn,you can certainly read

Capn,

you can certainly read from his statements that he wasn't a 'standard' Christian, and definitely not a 'fundie', but he clearly and explicitly bought into belief in God and much of the idealogy, with what struck me as a strong attraction to the medieval version, especially to what inspired the Crusades.

I stand by my statement that he was referencing anyone who opposed Islam to reinforce and justify his extreme views of Islam, but his actions make no sense in terms of what any of those people said, apart from possibly Hitchens, in his support of the second gulf war. I don't regard Hitchens as one of the more consistent or coherent thinkers of the 'New Atheists', and his objection to the first gulf war, launched by Bush senior, always knocked him down in my estimation. I was pissed off at him when I heard him express those views in an interview with an Australian radio host not so long after that exercise.

I based my views on events in Norway largely on what I heard from a twice-a-day BBC News podcast, which does pretty solid reporting and interviews with people involved in any events. I will admit that Jon Stewart's comments on the Daily Show seemed pretty valid too.

I will concede I was being a bit rhetorical that he was a 'standard' medieval Christian, but not that much of a stretch.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Question for those of you

Question for those of you who believe evolution is true.

When too many rats are put into a cage and it gets too crowded, some of rats snap and start fighting and killing the other rats. We would say this is just a natural phenomena due to the environmental conditions and rat biology.

When humans this happens among humans, we say he's evil, mad, insane, etc... Environmental conditions and the biology humans don't play a role in producing this event, just demons or defects inside this man.

 

Why the huge difference in analysis of the situation? Rats are our cousins with a lot of the same DNA, so why such different conclusions? I'm not condoning or making moral judgments about the killer, just saying wars, violence, famines, etc.. are natural consequences of 'too many rats in the cage.'

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Cap Pine Appel: Well, OK,

Cap Pine Appel: Well, OK, Hitchens is the exception, however he did change his mind on the war in Iraq, and it seemed like everyone else opposed him on his pro-war stance.

 

EXC: Are you justifying Breivik's actions? Seriously?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote:EXC: Are

BenfromCanada wrote:

EXC: Are you justifying Breivik's actions? Seriously?

Not at all. I'm against moralizing altogether. 

The whole problem is that society judges events through a moral filter. Theists judge it as godly or evil. Atheists as sane or insane. If people wanted to prevent events like this and all the suffering that goes with it, these events needs to be viewed as natural phenomena. Judging Breivik through a moral filter does no good because basically he said to society 'fuck your morality.' And it doesn't really discourage future events like this.

Only by viewing this as a natural phenomena and people like this as products of society and nature can the suffering be stopped in the future. Moralizing doesn't work, science does.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

EXC wrote:

Question for those of you who believe evolution is true.

When too many rats are put into a cage and it gets too crowded, some of rats snap and start fighting and killing the other rats. We would say this is just a natural phenomena due to the environmental conditions and rat biology.

When humans this happens among humans, we say he's evil, mad, insane, etc... Environmental conditions and the biology humans don't play a role in producing this event, just demons or defects inside this man.

 

Why the huge difference in analysis of the situation? Rats are our cousins with a lot of the same DNA, so why such different conclusions? I'm not condoning or making moral judgments about the killer, just saying wars, violence, famines, etc.. are natural consequences of 'too many rats in the cage.'


 

Not at all. We expect humans to be capable of rising a bit above basic stress responses.


 

Really, are rats technically insane for dealing with too much stress on the only level that their tiny brains are able to manage? If you want to argue that, then knock yourself out. However, that is likely going to the evolutionary root of some human stress responses.


 

Where it comes down for humans is that insanity is not even a medical term. It is specifically a legal term based on the law having come about before we knew what little we know about human mental states today.


 

A medical term that might be relevant would be psychosis. However, that actually does have a somewhat clear meaning and I would not be willing to go there without talking to the guy (if I even could break through a potential language barrier).


 

I would need to see a number of specific things in order to go there. If the guy turns out to be a clinical nutter, then there is that. However, from the small amount of info that I have, he does not seem like that.


 

For example, if he claims that god told him to do what he did, then that kinds of leads into a diagnosis of schizophrenia with positive symptoms. On the other hand, if he is not getting orders from god but he is sick and tired of moslems, that might go to schizoaffective disorder.


 

The criteria are fairly technical (to the point where “soft science” comes into play) but simple stress response is not really adequate for this dude.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }   

Not at all. We expect humans to be capable of rising a bit above basic stress responses.

Why? What evolutionary reason should there be for humans to respond differently than a rat to stress and competition from others? We face the same stresses as the rats in cage, don't we? The rats in cage limit population growth via violence and poverty, they're very territorial, why should we be different?
 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Really, are rats technically insane for dealing with too much stress on the only level that their tiny brains are able to manage? If you want to argue that, then knock yourself out. However, that is likely going to the evolutionary root of some human stress responses.

That is not what I'm arguing, just the opposite. People want to want to moralize or just say he's insane. That seems like just a convenient explanation to avoid dealing with the real problem rooted in our societies and our biology. If he's insane or suffering from a mental illness, why aren't the rats that kill as well?


 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Where it comes down for humans is that insanity is not even a medical term. It is specifically a legal term based on the law having come about before we knew what little we know about human mental states today.


I don't think he could be considered insane or delusional. It seems he new exactly what he was doing every step. He was on the far end of the scale with paranoia and full of a lot of rage for some reason.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Answers in Gene

EXC wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }   

Not at all. We expect humans to be capable of rising a bit above basic stress responses.

Why? What evolutionary reason should there be for humans to respond differently than a rat to stress and competition from others? We face the same stresses as the rats in cage, don't we? The rats in cage limit population growth via violence and poverty, they're very territorial, why should we be different?

Because we're not feral...

 


 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:EXC

redneF wrote:

EXC wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }   

Not at all. We expect humans to be capable of rising a bit above basic stress responses.

Why? What evolutionary reason should there be for humans to respond differently than a rat to stress and competition from others? We face the same stresses as the rats in cage, don't we? The rats in cage limit population growth via violence and poverty, they're very territorial, why should we be different?

Because we're not feral...

 

We have a winner!

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote: Because we're

redneF wrote:

 

Because we're not feral...
 

In what ways are humans still not feral? We still live by the rules of the jungle, we breed like wild animals, population only restrained by hunger, fighting and disease,  kill off our enemies. We domesticate and neuter other species to control problems but not ourselves.

The only difference I can see is that we have more advanced technology, a rat can't kill 80 other rats only because it doesn't have access to technology to do so. So why should we not expect events like this? So I understand people being saddended by events like this, but why be shocked. This is what happens when you put advanced technology into the hands of wild animals.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 Sam Harris wrote:I have

 

Sam Harris wrote:

I have written a fair amount about the threat that Islam poses to open societies, but I am happy to say that Breivik appears never to have heard of me. He has, however, digested the opinions of many writers who share my general concerns—Theodore Dalrymple, Robert D. Kaplan, Lee Harris, Ibn Warraq, Bernard Lewis, Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat, Daniel Pipes, Bat Ye’or, Mark Steyn, Samuel Huntington, et al.

Here's what ironic, he pretty much shares the same views about feminism and western culture as the Taliban. Seems he would fit right in with them if he could just switch his religion to Islam:

http://manboobz.com/2011/07/24/norweigian-terrorist-anders-breiviks-manifesto-reveals-him-to-be-a-rabid-antifeminist-with-views-strikingly-similar-to-many-mras/

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca