Pro-War Atheists Aren't Any Better

As Vache Folle notes, Christopher Hitchens has a book out explaining how bad religion is. This follows a couple of books by Sam Harris on the same subject. I haven't read these books, but I think one can concede a lot of the scientific and historical "facts" to them. I mean, let's face it: there is no evidence in the historical and archeological record that the Exodus ever happened; one who believes in the Exodus but refuses to believe in evolution because there's no "evidence" for it in the fossil record has a bogus claim to intellectual superiority. To me, it is the problem of consciousness that defies scientific explanation and gives rise to religion. Perhaps it can be said that one's belief about consciousness is one's religion.

One thing I notice about Hitchens and Harris, whom many believe are very hateful and militant in their anti-religion stance, is something also noticeable about Objectivist spokespersons. Their hatred of religion has blinded their sense of prudence and pragmatism. That is why they all support or have supported the "War on Terror;" to them, it is really a War on Islam. It's a matter of degree, I suppose: to them, Christianity is bad, but Islam is worse.

If Islam will ever conquer the West, it will be from immigration and demographics, not from terrorism. But like the Islamists and Christian fundamentalists they despise, these atheists are very paranoid about their perceived enemies, these "Islamo-fascists." That's why pro-war atheists are willing to kill, to destroy countries, to start and/or continue unprovoked wars - precisely the opposite strategy that should be used to counter whatever terrorist threat may exist. It isn't reason, but hatred derived from their religious beliefs, that leads them to support a War on Islam. Their militancy and contempt for international law makes these "rational" atheists just as bad as those they condemn.