Dawkins, Harris, Hicthens, and many other New Atheism luminaries weaponized atheism as War on Terror apologia.
Russell Foster, 2019: Why the arguments of the ‘New Atheists’ are often just as violent as religion
Celebrity atheists such as Richard Dawkins appear to claim the moral high ground when it comes to violence. Dawkins, along with Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens, insist that because religion is intrinsically violent, then atheism is inherently more pacific. After all, if all the evils in the world can be blamed on religion, then arguably eliminating religion is not only desirable but a moral obligation for atheists who believe in peace.
Yet our research shows that in the War on Terror, these atheists have been surprisingly willing to align themselves with policies which are at least as violent – and in some cases more so – than many of those perpetrated in the name of religion.
Émile P. Torres, 2021: Godless grifters: How the New Atheists merged with the far right
Never beleive antisemites are unaware of the absurdity of their replies.
“of course they’re driven by horror of the slaughter in Gaza”. - Dawkins in this video
I didn’t know what this video is supposed to be doing. He appears confused by this guy’s phrasing, then pissed when he concluded that this was probably some stupid gotcha moment instead of a conversation.
Every time this video is posted in each of the shady corners of the Internet, it is titled, “Dawkins accused protestors of antisemitism…” but never shows that part.
Stupid propaganda bullshit. He says crappy things sometimes I think, but stop being desperate
He said “of course they are not driven by the horror and slaughter in Gaza”
Here it is with captions
https://x.com/mintpressnews/status/1787465477461000604
Also, when he was asked about the accusations of him saying that the students are driven by anti-semitism, he responded “Yes” on the video.
Crap you’re absolutely right. I listened held up to my ear (on Mobile) and he Said “of course they’re not”. Very different.
And the “yes” part conflicting with “of course they are” led me to believe there was a bigger statement we’d need to hear to understand. But “not” changes everything. I still want to hear that panel. I don’t understand how anyone can think it’s antisemitism
