As always, you’re welcome to your opinions. I just ask that you don’t presume to think your perspective is the only valid one (that way lies the “he’s not a real…” bullshit that many religious folk seem to enjoy). I recognise my perspective is simply my own, and it’s open to change should the evidence lead me elsewhere.

Jumile :
I take exception to this statement. That you may disagree with the premise of my post, or missed the point I was trying to convey, doesn’t mean I haven’t a clue as to what the issues are or what my fellow atheists are doing.
Kindly keep your ad hominems, well-poisoning and generalisations to yourself, and I’ll extend you the same courtesy.

Please point out the Ad Hominem? Look. Sorry that i confused you with an American. I had higher hopes for an Atheist from the UK. But your take on the issues are naive. I apologize.
As far as generalizing is concerned, your entire blog post was a generalization fest lacking in any specific instances of what you were arguing against. As far as Scientists identifying as Atheists, http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists

Your insistence that vocal Atheists (what percentage?) are poisoning the well lacks specificity and seems to poison the well. Who are these Atheists, what are they saying and to whom are they speaking?

So science is not a matter of logic? Afraid that children might see more logic in Intelligent design perhaps?? Sounds more like brainwashing them to only one view of how certain (atheist) scientists believe the world came into being. Surely any child would benefit from choice in the matter of being.

And your true colors come out. Once “Intelligent Design” becomes a scientific theory supported by empirical evidence with peer reviewed publications then we can talk. Intelligent design is specifically an anti-science stance. No child benefits from teaching it in the classroom. It is not legitimate and does not deserve to be taken as legitimate.

Richard Dawkins is what I (and many others) would consider a ‘militant atheist’.
Jilian Baggini’s decription of Militant Atheist being:
Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs.
So what does Dawkins do you ask???
Arms atheist militants with lies and distortions? Advocates discriminatory laws revoking the rights of entire segments of the population that he believes should be destroyed. Yes!!!

That is an entirely hyperbolic and unappropriate use of the word “militant.” But If you wouldn’t mind providing me with what “lies and distortions” Richard Dawkins “arms” us “militant” atheists, that would be great. Until then, it’s just a useless and entirely emotional and reactionary phrase.

Actually they are not. did a run on the numbers, they vary from 1.17% to about 5% of the US population. 2000 Census had the total number of homosexuals at 4.2%. The Jewish population makes up 2.2%, Muslims make up 2% and Hindu 0.50%.
Exactly what rights are being stripped from homosexuals? I might be wrong, but I think you might be referring to the right to marry, correct???

The right to marry and the right to adopt and raise children. And all the rights inherent with that. 5 states of 50 in the US allow and recognise it. The rights of 4.2% of the population is a significant number of people.

I don’t think you understand what the term ‘brainwashing’ means. Conservapedia is yes very conservative, yet nobody forces you to read it nor visit the site or have it ingrained into your forehead. A conservative mindframe does not tolerate everything, if it did it wouldn’t be considered conservative. Surely even you are intolerant of things that you disagree with, doesn’t make you a bigot.

No one is stating that conservapedia is there to brainwash. It is there as a representative of the minds of of the religious conservative.

So based on your comments, and this blogpost, you and the blogger haven’t a clue as to what the issues are…

Please do enlighten us to the issues….
Where to even begin? When you enter into a discussion, there is an assumption that you have a comprehension of the issue. The Evolution-Creationism topic is not something that I’m going to be able to enlighten you if you think that creationism is on equal scientific and logical footing as evolution. About gay rights? Where to begin? Militant Atheism? Al Quaeda, and every Islamic terrorist group arming their supporters with guns, explosives, provoking and ordering violence are militant groups. The IRA, African Witch Hunters, Catholic Church since its inception. In the US: Minute Men, KKK, Black Panthers and to a lesser extent, the Tea Baggers. These are examples of actual militancy. Your example of Militant Atheism is laughable.

So based on your comments, and this blogpost, you and the blogger haven’t a clue as to what the issues are, what atheists are actually doing…

I take exception to this statement. That you may disagree with the premise of my post, or missed the point I was trying to convey, doesn’t mean I haven’t a clue as to what the issues are or what my fellow atheists are doing.

Kindly keep your ad hominems, well-poisoning and generalisations to yourself, and I’ll extend you the same courtesy.

It’s not a matter of what appears more logical too scientifically illiterate children, it is about teaching them science so they become scientifically literate.

So science is not a matter of logic? Afraid that children might see more logic in Intelligent design perhaps?? Sounds more like brainwashing them to only one view of how certain (atheist) scientists believe the world came into being. Surely any child would benefit from choice in the matter of being.

Richard Dawkins is what I (and many others) would consider a ‘militant atheist’.
Jilian Baggini’s decription of Militant Atheist being:
Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs.
So what does Dawkins do you ask???
Arms atheist militants with lies and distortions? Advocates discriminatory laws revoking the rights of entire segments of the population that he believes should be destroyed. Yes!!!

Did a little more research on Warren and he doesn’t sit right with me. Seems to say one thing than say he didn’t say it when it gets in into trouble.

Why this focus on gay rights? Because they are a significan population in the US

Actually they are not. did a run on the numbers, they vary from 1.17% to about 5% of the US population. 2000 Census had the total number of homosexuals at 4.2%. The Jewish population makes up 2.2%, Muslims make up 2% and Hindu 0.50%.
Exactly what rights are being stripped from homosexuals? I might be wrong, but I think you might be referring to the right to marry, correct???

I don’t think you understand what the term ‘brainwashing’ means. Conservapedia is yes very conservative, yet nobody forces you to read it nor visit the site or have it ingrained into your forehead. A conservative mindframe does not tolerate everything, if it did it wouldn’t be considered conservative. Surely even you are intolerant of things that you disagree with, doesn’t make you a bigot.

So based on your comments, and this blogpost, you and the blogger haven’t a clue as to what the issues are…

Please do enlighten us to the issues….

Those two were always polarized. It’s not an increasing polarization.

I personally don’t see why children can’t be taught both creationlism and evoltuion in school and let the kids decide for themselves what appears more logical.

Because, oh, I don't know, evolution is science and as such belongs in the science curriculum and creationism is pseudoscientific religious nonsense and as such belongs in church? It's not a matter of what appears more logical too scientifically illiterate children, it is about teaching them science so they become scientifically literate.

Sure, there is no harm in stating your disbelief, but that’s not exactly all he does is it.

Then what does he do? Arm atheist militants with guns and explosives? Pass discriminatory laws revoking the rights of entire segments of the population that he believes his creator wants destroyed? What his he doing? OH MY GOD! HE WRITES BOOKS, CONDUCTS INTERVIEWS, GIVES TALKS, AND DOES SCIENCE AND TELLS US ABOUT IT!!! WHAT CAN WE DO??!!?! Seriously? What is he doing that is not merely being vocal?

Not sure why you mentioned Rick Warren, I had no idea who he was but I googled him and went to his site and read a letter he wrote to the pastors of Uganda urgently requesting them to put an immediate stop to the witch hunt and imprisonment of homosexuals.

Yes, Rick Warren just wrote a letter repudiating himself from the Uganda fiasco because, as one of the principle endorsers of that dispicable legislation, he got a lot of flak from every where and decided out of political interests to write a letter. Do a little more research on him, his church, and why people should be a little wary of his ilk.

I don’t see any problem with Coservapedia either. Yes it’s conservative, big deal! You seem to be stuck on the issue of gay rights and even though it is condemned by most religions you seem to singled Christianity out when Islam, Hinduism and Judaism are vehemently against same sex relationships but you don’t really want to step on their toes. I wonder why that it is?

Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism consitute such a small minority in the US that they aren’t particularly relevent, especially Hinduism and are mostly a non-issue except in some specific local affairs. However, you may note if you do decide to actually pay attention to the issue, that Islam and Judaism are not spared the rod. Why this focus on gay rights? Because they are a significan population in the US, and more than that, they don’t deserve religious nutcases stripping away their rights.

What’s wrong with conservapoedia? Sure it’s conservative. That’s not why I bring it up. It is an example of the kind of brainwashed biggotry representative of the problem of the religious.

So based on your comments, and this blogpost, you and the blogger haven’t a clue as to what the issues are, what atheists are actually doing (which isn’t much), and your reactions to the issue are more an emotional appeal than an intellectual are even particularly rational one.

Increasing polarization as in the process or condition of being divided into two opposing groups. Atheists vs Christian, Evolution vs Creationalism ect….I personally don’t see why children can’t be taught both creationlism and evoltuion in school and let the kids decide for themselves what appears more logical.
‘As far as Richard Dawkins is concerned, he has done nothing other than be vocal, which is exactly what needs to be done.’
Sure, there is no harm in stating your disbelief, but that’s not exactly all he does is it.
Not sure why you mentioned Rick Warren, I had no idea who he was but I googled him and went to his site and read a letter he wrote to the pastors of Uganda urgently requesting them to put an immediate stop to the witch hunt and imprisonment of homosexuals. I don’t see any problem with Coservapedia either. Yes it’s conservative, big deal! You seem to be stuck on the issue of gay rights and even though it is condemned by most religions you seem to singled Christianity out when Islam, Hinduism and Judaism are vehemently against same sex relationships but you don’t really want to step on their toes. I wonder why that it is?

James :

…in this nation.

While I agree with the lion’s share of what you write, this is one small point that I cannot and will not let go unchecked (mainly because it’s an Internet issue that’s been driving me nuts for 20 years now)…

The blog software shows me that you are most likely in Texas in the US. It shows me that Fabian is in the UK, as am I. Please remember that this is the worldwide Internet: there is no “this nation” (or “the law says” or “our government did”), if you take my meaning.

Increasing polarization? Care to expound on that?

As far as Richard Dawkins is concerned, he has done nothing other than be vocal, which is exactly what needs to be done.

But getting back to “generalizations,” the views and actions of the majority of christians in this nation. The battle over evolution with the majority of Christians disbelieving of it and trying to replace it with biblical creationism, the majority of christians attempting to and succeeding in outlawing gay rights on religious grounds and using the excuse that legislation affirming gay rights is an assault on the rights of Christians to practice their religion. Need I go on? Stem cell research? Ever hear of Dominion Theology? Rick Warren? The role of US evangelism in the witch hunts in Africa and the call for the death penalty for homosexuality in Uganda? Conservapoedia? This is not fringe Christianity. The is the voice of American Christianity. And the “New Atheists” calling them out on it is mean and insensitive?

I’m sure you’ll agree Dawkin’s goes a little further than just ‘vocalizing’ his atheism.

Cannot comment on the blog or forum of the website as it won’t load on my pc.
However the statement

“The very act of being an atheist will cause even moderates to think of you as a weirdo fanatic without any regard whatsoever to how vocal you are in your atheism.”

This is still part of the problem that if I’m mistaken, Jumile has outlined, that both sides are becoming increasingly polarized by generalist views such as yours.
All Christians are……. and the
All Religions are……. and the
All Atheists are…….

All are arguments doomed to failure through lack of understanding from either sides.