This one says she doesn't believe in god, but doesn't call herself atheist because it's controversial. It's controversial because theists say it is. Giving in to their demonization doesn't help.

The divisive label of militant atheism was made up by theists to demonize atheists as well. The columnist is attacking the victim and defending the oppressor here. Dawkins is part of the process of taking back the word. The columnist only makes the problem worse by. to acknowledging this.

And finally, and most damningly, the columnist whines that Dawkins doesn't treat theists like children, and then proceeds to be as condescending towards theists as possible, in the most disgusting, paternalistic manner. Such is the apologetics of the "concerned, not-an-atheist atheist columnist". It's like they all follow,the same formula.

across the whole of the internet, and posting their tripe as her own. With no comment, no criticism, no insight, just the spreading of baloney, to further her agenda.

There are many non-believers who don't identify publicly as "atheists" because they don't want to be associated with the anti-theists, who like to feel they represent all non-believers. This is the same dilemma many liberal Christians and Muslims find themselves in. The loudest voices always tend to come from the extremists. This group is a perfect example. Interestingly, there don't appear to be any religious extremists here, only a handful of stridently offensive anti-theists.

Cant we get rid of them already?

But then who would you have to rail against?

Liberal Christians and Muslims are reluctant to identify themselves as Christians and Muslims? Where? Certainly liberal Christians aren't reluctant to identify themselves as Christians here in overwhelmingly Christian America.

I suppose we should follow your example of atheist behavior, which appears to consist almost entirely of attacking atheists. Odd that.

I said "anti-theists". I only attack bigots and I attack them for their bitory, not their religious beliefs. I've never criticized an atheist for being an atheist. An asshole is an asshole regardless of his beliefs. Bigotry is demonstrated by words and actions, not thought.

when you have nothing else to offer. But when it comes to providing evidence to back up your horseshit claims, all you have is handwaving crap like "it's obvious you're a bigot" or "the evidence for your bigotry is everywhere", without ever being able to actually point to it.

Your wife is bigoted against creationists, based on HER words (calling them "a bunch of dumbasses", among many other things). Is she an asshole? Does she deserve to be attacked over the dinner table? Or do you only attack people who get your intellectual goat, to try to deflect from your deficient arguments?

It's obvious the Abrahamic religions are all fundamentally bigoted, just by looking at their texts. What makes anti-theism bigoted? Being opposed to false beliefs is bigoted?

Hating people for their beliefs, that is what bigotry is about. You can hate the beliefs as much as you like, but hating the individuals, calling them names, smearing them, poking fun at them, attacking their family members, is pure bigotry.

I do not defend religious privilege. I defend individuals who are bullied by assholes, just because of their personal beliefs.
Not all anti-theists do that and not all atheists are anti-theists. But we have a crew of them who post here and their only motive is to bait believers and tolerant non-believers. They have no interest in discussion or debate. They are here to disrupt, period.
They are intolerant jerks. I suspect some may even be RW fundies just here to stir up shit.

After reading a few of your posts in this thread, it appears you may support these bigots. At least I haven't seen you making personal attacks on fellow DUers and their families, but I've only read a couple of your posts, which was quite enough.
I don't recall having any interaction with you in the past and I doubt there will be any in the future.

Consider this response a courtesy on my part. Bye now!

However, it is inherent in Abrahamic religions.

Anti-theism isn't hating people for their beliefs. Your strawmen are terrible, and part of the usual demonization seen by conservatives of atheists.

Such a scary word. Does it even have a useful meaning, the way that you use it?

And no, none of us think we represent all non-believers, and it's simply more of your dishonest bullshit to claim otherwise. There are plenty of "thank god I'm not like other atheists" atheists that make me nauseous with their smug, self-righteous HuffPost crap, and that I wouldn't care to represent no matter what.

Then it's a result of demonization from theists. And if theists don't know the difference, it's their own damn fault.

And anti-theists? They're not comparable to "liberal" Christians or Muslims. Liberal Christians and Muslims identify with explicitly bigoted, hateful religious dogma and texts while not wanting to own up to it. Anti-theists are opposed to believing false things. Not much of a comparison I can see. And nothing wrong with anti-theism either. Heck, maybe people opposed to scams are assholes too?

I don't know who the anti-theists are that think the represent all non-believers, but I smell strong scents of demonization and false analogies coming from your post.

Like I've said before, if someone is offended but can't come up with a good reason why, it's probably because they're wrong.

What you find "stridently offensive" seems completely out of whack, like all good defenders of religious privilege.

Your post defends religious privilege while creating a strawman out of anti-theists and atheism.

your posts never get tired, they are like a broken record.

there is "less at link". The more you read of that blather, the less you know. Consider the first two paragraphs, where the author first sensationalizes Stuff Dawkins Said, then walks it back, and then self referentially describes what the author and the other hacks will do with this "opportunity".

Personal dislike? As if that counts for anything?

What has he ever done that has threatened your right to hold or practice your beliefs? Nothing. What has he done to make you doubt them? Very clearly nothing. You yourself have admitted that your beliefs don't make any sense, so why do you hate others for pointing out that same thing?

Kick and recommend indeed.

ie., someone who's more famous for being famous than for his accomplishments.

That tends to have a negative effect on the brain.

He's the NDT of biology.

I think his accomplishments speak for themselves.

I said nothing at all that questions his actual achievements.

and, as I often say, kicking down the door.

He made it possible for a lot of people to really think about what they believed or didn't believe and developed arguments that people could use to combat what was otherwise accepted dogma about religion.

I'm not a fan because I think he is an anti-theist, but I can't just dismiss him.

NT

What I said was thst my post said nothing against his actual achievements.

There is a lot of things I object to about him, but I can't deny the role he has played and some of it has been an overall positive.

Anyone who calls creationists "a bunch of dumbasses" (as you did) or who serves up the other vehement criticisms of organized religion that you have, fully qualifies.

So the question is, why do you pretend you're not? Why do you regularly and constantly upbraid others, both on this board and elsewhere, for doing exactly what YOU do?

Including his various best selling books and leading the public debate about atheism and religion.
So no, he is not a Khardashian or whoever you think is analogous.
You can keep defending your post or admit you made a m8stake.

NT

You said you were not degrading his accomplishments, but still maintain he is just famous for being famous and not his accomplishments. You are wrong, he is famous for his accomplishments.
You can mantain your erroneous position or admit your mistake, depends on how foolish you wish to look.

again.

fine with me.

He is intelligent, well-spoken, and interesting. And he can be or at least appears to be as the columnist describes - controversial for the sake of controversy.

I agree that he often does more harm than good when it comes to rational discussions about human beings, beliefs, religion, non-religion, and how in the hell we could all get along in spite of our differences in thinking, believing, and understanding life and the mysteries of life.

He has played a vital role in opening up the discussion, kicking down the door and making it safer for people not only to talk about lack of beliefs, but identity as a non-believer.

But there are rising voices that I find more appealing, more inclusive and more thoughtful when it comes to their views on believers.

As one looking more to find the commonalities than the differences, I too wish Dawkins would exhibit more empathy (not necessarily sympathy) for those who experience the world differently than he does.

but she lost the plot towards the end of the second paragraph, putting the onus entirely on Dawkins, instead of calling out the media and other critics who accuse him of doing what they are doing to him.

It isn't clear to me that she knew that the whole piece is an odd bit of self referential mockery.

Even a small pack of coyotes can make a lot of noise.

coyotes are way too smart and sociable to deserve that comparison!

Considering that religious persons have done more harm to humanity than any disease or natural disaster. But they still believe they are the persecuted underdog, even though most people in the world believe in some sort of invisible god or fairy tale and have been pretty much freely torturing, raping, slaughtering and imprisoning those who don't believe in their particular invisible god en masse for centuries.

I don't think impeachment would go nearly far enough considering what he and his ilk is responsible for!!!

(in case it wasn't apparent)

You know we really enjoy being evil.

The Aztecs Invented the Vacation!
Men and Women are the Same Sex!
Our Forefathers Took Drugs!
Your Brain Is Not The Boss!
Yes! That's Right!
Everything You Know Is WRONG!!!

I think the label 'atheist' has value simply because there are so many theists out there, so it makes sense to call oneself an atheist to paint the distinction. Perhaps a better label would be 'naturalists', as opposed to 'supernaturalists', but I sincerely doubt the religious communities will accept being referred to as 'supernaturalists', so we're probably stuck with theists and atheists, labelwise.

but recognize that there are many people in gray areas as well.

I think we need a new nomenclature, one that is less provocative and more inclusive.

I see that happening in some areas, but it's a challenge.

just be honest about it. But if you're proposing new terms to label people other than yourself with, that's just what you've said over and over SHOULDN'T be done. According to you, people should be able to call themselves whatever the fuck they want, no matter how "provocative" you and your clique think it is.

I wish our discussions could be less focused on labels, one way or the other, and more about how our various points of view inform our lives.

Please, skepticscott, let it go.

So instead you tell me to STFU.

Typical.

"I won't call myself am atheist because of all the hatefulness."

Huh!?
Rubbish!!! Total garbage.

When we no longer hear about hateful things done in the name of religion, then maybe we can begin having a discussion about atheist hate. In the meantime, before we lynch Dawkins, let us consider actions done in their name.

Just saying.

and that will certainly drive his public beliefs and behavior.

It is like being in research where you tend to work in areas that are being funded -- it's what you need to do to maintain or advance your career.

Self-promotion.

Exactly what is the nature of this "career" he's so deeply concerned about? Since he could retire tomorrow and live off of his book sales, what exactly is he trying to "advance"? He's been the target of hostility and death threats for decades, so why would he all of sudden care what other people think or about their hurt feewings?

Good for him. But to keep things moving he has to stay relevant and in the news. What he cares about are the feelings of his fans, that they stay interested.

You spoke to him and he told you?

NO DIFFERENT than religious fundamentalists who murder people. Dawkins writes books and says unflattering things about religion; they issue fatwas and bomb abortion clinics. Just two sides of the same coin, you see.

that his fans not only stay interested, but that they stay interested enough to keep the $$$$ coming.

Anyone who thinks this guy doesn't have an agent and a publicist at this point is naive.

complaint. Does she expect Dawkins to sympathize with the willfully ignorant, the dishonest, and those who have cognitive dissonance?

To put it simply, I don't know what she expects him to do, lie about what he thinks? His psychological theorizing about the origins or influences on belief may be naive but they warrant nothing more than an education, or a disclaimer about his opinion. But that's the worse you can say about him.

Yet, from the religious and some secular people alike, he becomes enemy number one, to borrow a label from politics, its like they are suffering from Dawkins Derangement Syndrome.

than Dawkins ever has been.

I don't get it.

If you say you are an atheist/agnostic, or criticize the Abrahamic religions in the slightest, or the actions that their believers engage in that are offensive, violent, or bigoted based on said religious beliefs,then you are offending the object of your criticism terribly, as such actions are NOT to be criticized, and that makes you the dreaded

MILITANT atheist.

OOOHHHH Scary!!!

What horseshit.

Dawkins should... pity believers?

I do not get this author's use of the English language.

She is a non-believer and has sympathy for believers. I would prefer that to malice or derision.

But I would have much preferred the word empathy.

sounds nicer than "bigotry."

sym·pa·thy
noun
1. feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune

Do you agree with the author, then, that religious belief is a "misfortune" that we should "pity" someone for having?