i'm just gonna say it.  i don't see how any rational thinking person can still believe that Benghazi is some sort of scandal.  

could it have been avoided?  sure.  in retrospect i'd imagine most attacks on our citizens could have been avoided, but still.  as the facts have come out, there is plenty of blame to throw around.  even the Ambasssador himself declined additional support as he chose to work with local militia.  

but there is no scandal.  i'm shocked how so many people don't remember all the protests that were happening in that part of the world b/c of the anti-Islam Youtube movie.  for days, while they were sorting through intelligence, it was widely reported by such liberal networks as Fox News that the video was considered the reason.  turns out the CIA thought as much, and still does today.  

i'm sorry to tell conservatives that there was no "stand down order", and no planes were anywhere in the area.  a response was organized and it saved lots of lives.  a bad thing happened in the world, but that doesn't make it a Obama or Hillary scandal.  

so here's what i'm wondering.  in light of the facts available, how could one be an atheist and believe the conservative narrative on Benghazi?  

i know there are conservative atheists, but i think this is a test of whether you can be a conservative atheist and still be a rational human being. the confidence on the right that Benghazi is a scandal is akin to the confidence the religious have that Jesus loves them. funny how the two groups overlap.  

Views: 345

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree, but the whole problem here is political pressure from the right and the fact that they had said from the beginning how they would not work with Obama. Hillary took a lot of the heat from this too, and I just don't see how any of it could have been a "scandal."

The idea of a "stand down order" is an appeal to get others to agree with you on Obama. Certainly you are being told he is not good for America, and that secretly he is a Muslim. (I say "so what" if he really was.) I know people that still believe he is not a citizen, and this will end his presidency any day now. My question is "was his mother a citizen?" Case closed.

People believe what they are told, along with a sampling of what they know. For the right to still believe that Benghazi is a scandal is similar to christians celabrating Easter by having their children gather up Easter eggs.

Benghazi was simply part of the price of empire.  

I don't think I've ever heard it put better.


Yes Kakumei, that's it in a nutshell -- well put!  Matthew, I don't see what atheism has to do with it, unless you mean people with a working and well-balanced bullshit detector.  I'm politically liberal by almost any measure, and not prone to wild conspiracy theories (at least I think not), but I also think that there are things about the Benghazi situation that haven't been made clear and probably never will be.  The US State Department and the CIA have been joined at the hip since the dark days of the Dulles brothers, and so skepticism of any claim by either is a healthy stance.  The way that Fox News, certain congress members and others on the far right go about it is so transparently ridiculous that it's almost honest.  And of course many Americans, whether they realize it or not, are acting on deeply held belief that the US shouldn't have a president who isn't a white Christian male.


Since atheism is not a world view, then there is nothing incompatible with being an atheist and being a conservative or a liberal or a Green or a socialist or a communist or any other political philosophy you know of or have created in the last 30 seconds.

The fact that the original post implies that atheists are rational, conservatives - specifically those who buy into the FOX News narrative about Benghazi - are irrational, and, therefore, atheists could not be such conservatives, is, itself, irrational.

There is no point of view about anything else in the universe that logically follows from disbelief in god(s).

This is one of the things that irks me the most about the "atheist community" (a community of people without a worldview) - the implication that only liberals can be good atheists. The irony is that people who hold such beliefs are so irrational they can't even see how irrational such beliefs are, yet they want to wag their fingers at theists for believing in Sky Daddy or Jebus.

i was waiting for this one.  i made sure to include the disclaimer that atheists can be conservatives, or as you pointed out, anything they want to be. 

i'm talking specifically about the Benghazi issue.  i would hope that an atheist who is conservative can at least recognize the reality of the situation.  otherwise what's all this talk of atheists using logic and reason if it's only dedicated to the issue of the supernatural. 

well actually, Mel, that's exactly what i'm trying to find out. so far i haven't seen anyone here screaming BENGHAZI!

Dear booklover,

If you have had no experience with atheists who are irrational and unreasonable, then you have not read many comments over at Freethought Blogs!

As I continue to point out, there is nothing about atheism that implies any kind of rational thought processes going on in the head of the person in question in any other part of their lives. It is, therefore, a logical fallacy to assume that just because a person reached a logical and rational conclusion about one topic - the non-existence of god(s) - that they have put forth the same effort on any other topic.

Atheism is not a world view, so it does not inform an atheist about the validity of healing crystals or UFOs or Atlantis or yetis or anything else that might come up on "Coast to Coast AM."

Now, many people are atheists (no caps) because they are Rationalists. Rationalism >is< a worldview (therefore, caps apply), so it does inform its adherents about the existence of gods, yetis, angels and all kinds of things.

Because not all atheists are Rationalists, then some atheists could easily believe that "Benghazi" really is the nail in Hillary Clinton's political coffin - referring get back to the OP, but, as noted below, we have not yet heard from them here.

Thanks for reading.

ME - i think you hit the nail on the head.  you're right, just b/c you're rational on the supernatural doesn't have to translate to other issues.  it tends to, perhaps b/c it takes slightly higher thinking skills/intelligence to reach the conclusion that there aren't now nor ever have been any gods.  

and i'll admit i'm surprised we haven't had any BENGHAZI screaming on this discussion.  happily surprised.  thanks for the insight.

you're kidding me, right?  


Less than 60 years ago it would have been reasonable from a completely rational conservative scientific view to be skeptical of the new and not yet well evidenced theory of plate tectonics.  You would have been wrong, but not irrational.  And just because someone is rational may imply but doesn't guarantee that their view is necessarily correct.  I'm sure that you get that because I've found your posts to be intelligent and well reasoned.

I probably know less about the Benghazi diatribe than do most because I have no TV.  I imagine that arguments are made that are popular but couldn't pass any sort of rational test.  But just because an argument is rational doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct.  More likely, sure.  Again, I just don't see where status as an atheist, or even rationalist in general, dictates a particular worldview.

If you took a poll, I suspect that atheists fall for Fox News bullshit less often than do theists, and correlations sometimes do mean something, but not always.





Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service