The "new atheism" is a construct of those who are offended by ANY AND ALL atheism ...

Dawkins is no God, and atheism lives on ... We are growing, like it or not, DU theists ....

I don't know any DU theists who would object to that, do you?

Is this the newest riff off the "self-hating homosexual?"

And that's no Woodstock. (I knew Woodstock, Senator. . ...) Look at all that short hair!

Your comment makes no sense whatsoever ... There is no phrase or clause that would indicate self loathing or self hatred ... That is just the crap you have in your mind ...

Many of the writers who have called the "New Atheism" into question are themselves atheists. According to you, the "New Atheism" is a construct of those who hate atheists and atheism. Ergo, you seem to be promoting the idea that these non-"New" atheists, or whatever you'd care to call them, hate atheists and atheism.

But I am offended when folk like Dawkins and Harris pretend to represent atheists in general. The best thing about atheism is, we don't need rallies, or flags, or leaders. Trying to co-opt people into a "movement", based on a lack of belief is absurd and beyond any definition of the word "reason".
These blowhards are a joke.

poster above.

The buzzcuts, the flags, the dogtags, ...
it's more like Atheist ROTC than Atheist Woodstock.

Anyway, color guards are not unusual at opening ceremonies.

Huzzah!

We can hope!

who state their positions clearly, without rancor or an attempt simply to ridicule and smear those who differ. Theists have much to learn from people or groups like that, particularly atheists. At the same time we have nothing to learn from Dawkins and the diatribes he spouts.
"Interfaith" must include in the conversation those of no religious faith. It is clear that in this group we can welcome these conversations. I think we need to hear these opinions and learn from them. This is no place simply to blast them. They have much to teach and we theists have much to learn. My guess is that now, on the many sides of the conversation, we are at last free from not wanting to hear and only using posts as ridicule.

Most atheists that I know aren't anti-theists at all and don't identify with him. I am hopeful that we will see participation from a wide variety of people here, both believers and non-believers. We are in the same boat and have the same goals. Those who want to form alliances and make progress will win the day, imo.

From the thread header, "Of faithful Catholics believing in the doctrine of transubstantiation, he instructs his listeners to 'Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!'" One of my main complaints about Dawkins is that he does not know very much about theology. Now, one can debate transubstantiation, which is an explanation of how Christ becomes present in the Eucharist -- I suspect that Dawkins is actually inveighing against belief in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Another problem I have with Dawkins is that he believes -- rightly -- that creationist ignorance of evolution is inexcusable in when discussing evolution; but ignorance of theology is acceptable in discussing religion. In other words, your ignorance of subject <A> is bad; my ignorance of subject <B> is OK. It's called "having it both ways".

I could post on P. Z. Myers' "Courtier's Reply" if anyone is interested.

What's the point? If a question is by it's very nature not able to be answered definitively, what is the point of taking a hard stand on it.

which I think was a good description of him - his career is based on his brand of atheism. It has made its mark, but I think it will fade over time.

and let some new blood take the stage.

He has increased recognition and acceptance of atheism. He has made the case for atheism as a legitimate POV that should be accepted and understood.