It isn't as if he hasn't put in more than his two cents on atheism.

On the other hand, he was never mentioned in this thread until I pointed out that Dawkins, Harris and others don't use the kind of personal insults you were accusing them of, at which point you suddenly brought him up and then attempted to tar all prominent atheists with the same brush, despite none of them making or supporting such remarks themselves.

Ahem, you forgot about "faith-head". Oh, and the Nazi stuff.

No, I didn't forget about either of those things. They were both addressed at length earlier in this thread, wherein I showed that neither of them indicates anything at all like what you claim it does.

Dawkins... never denied actually saying "How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it 'comforting'?

Good. He shouldn't deny that; it's a perfectly rational and defensible sentiment and I feel exactly the same way. We should not take beliefs seriously if they're believed in purely because a person finds them comforting, and we should not take people seriously if they customarily form their beliefs on that basis. Again, this is not an ad hominem attack, but a valid criticism of the fallacious nature of much religious faith. Many believers can't tell the difference, and apparently you can't either, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

You know very well that people will disavow things that they really do believe and that they often let slip what they believe by actions and more indirect indications.

And you have supplied no examples of such "actions", and your "indirect indications" consist of nothing but long chains of dubious assumptions about people's secret motivations. Neither of these offer anything remotely like support for the sweeping accusations you've put forward.

Since we're now revisiting earlier topics, I think it's safe to say this thread is played out.

Instead, I wonder how optimistic we should really be about the prospect of any sort of atheist/sceptical constituency in the US electorate. It would be interesting to see some finer-grained research that might give a clue as to how many of those non-believing Americans are just apathetic about religion - perhaps unimpressed by it, but not necessarily in any way that could drive them to support specific legislative reforms.

It isn't as if he hasn't put in more than his two cents on atheism. He's not the most visible advocate, but he is a contributor to Parenting Beyond Belief, and he complained that his gibe about Christards was edited. Not to mention his Bullsh!t episode on the Bible.

Ebonmuse: "I can only assume it's because Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the other atheists you've been attacking for the past few days haven't actually used any of the insulting language you've repeatedly accused them of using, which is just what I said."

Ahem, you forgot about "faith-head". Oh, and the Nazi stuff. Heck, I could add the Peter Kay to-do to the list. Dawkins was very clear that someone tricked him into delivering a sound bite, and was clear that he didn't know that he was responding to an excerpt from Peter Kay's book, but he never denied actually saying "How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it 'comforting'?" and admitted that he gave his "usual response" to the sentiment he was fed. Of course, the answer to his rhetorical question is obvious: You can take someone seriously in spite of having the flaw of credo consolans. If he wasn't in the habit of being contemptuous of "faith-heads," he wouldn't have been tricked.

Ebonmuse: "In other words, 'Don't pay attention to what they say - I know what they really think!'"

Um, no. You know very well that people will disavow things that they really do believe and that they often let slip what they believe by actions and more indirect indications. I'm not going to take the claim "I'm no bigot" seriously when it comes from someone who casually refers to black men as "Boy." I'm not going to take a guy seriously if he says he doesn't hold theists in contempt when I see him casually refer to theists as "faith-heads" and make other gibes. It is certainly manifest that Dawkins did deliver a book that was well beneath what a man of his intelligence could offer. At some point, the case for contempt becomes cumulative, and that is not a matter of "personal animus."

...or the more explicit "Christard" used by Penn Jillette.

Now all of a sudden, Penn Jillette is brought into this, despite him not having written any books on atheism or otherwise acting as a spokesperson for atheism? Why? I can only assume it's because Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the other atheists you've been attacking for the past few days haven't actually used any of the insulting language you've repeatedly accused them of using, which is just what I said. Facts can be such inconvenient things. (For the record, "Christard" is indeed an example of an unjustifiable personal attack, and I think Jillette was completely in the wrong to say it.)

They'll pay the usual lip service that they don't believe theists are stupid, etc., but they don't act that way, and people pick up on that.

In other words, "Don't pay attention to what they say - I know what they really think!" That is the foundation your case is built on? The claim to be a mind-reader?

I continue to be amazed by the lengths to which you're straining to find something that paints Dawkins and Harris in a bad light. Now you're arguing that you believe they didn't make their case as strongly as they could have, and because of that you think they were deliberately being lazy, and because of that you assume that they hold theists in contempt and don't care to spend the effort on them. That is an astonishing chain of thinly stretched assumptions and opinions to base your case on.

It seems to me that you bear some personal animus against Richard Dawkins that is coloring all your views of him and leading you to always assume bad faith about everything he says or does. In this, I note, you are distinctly similar to the religious apologists who do the same thing.

I disagree. They have suggested otherwise. It tends to be in subtle ways, such as the use of epithets like "faith-head" or the more explicit "Christard" used by Penn Jillette, or by thinly-veiled Nazi allusions, or by the sheer laziness of their investigations even when they could do much better, as if theists weren't worth the trouble. It is as if they know in their heads that believers aren't cretins, but they haven't internalized it. They'll pay the usual lip service that they don't believe theists are stupid, etc., but they don't act that way, and people pick up on that. Obviously, a big part of the reaction to Dawkins has to do with sacred cows as well, but that is far from the whole picture, especially when the criticism comes from more than just the usual suspects.

Thank you so much for your reasoned reply.
Yes, I know many people who close their eyes, kneel, and pray to a - what? - I suppose it's an idea. It makes no sense to me. It seems a waste of time. And, of course, they are not morons. Yes, they are incorrect and mistaken.
And the many millions of pages of literature debating this miracle or that angel, or what-have-you ... what a monumental waste of time, paper, and energy. It's breathtaking, what fools these mortals be. Sorry, I mean mistaken.
.
.

When even smart people can believe wrong things, calling someone a moron for an incorrect opinion is pretty ridiculous...

I agree with that. And if Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris went around calling theists morons or lunatics or imbeciles, then I'd certainly condemn them for it. But as far as I'm aware, they don't. I've read both their books and I've never noticed any language like that. Note that I did suggest in my review that The God Delusion was an overly pejorative title; but even that falls far short of what you've accused them of. (It is still criticism of a belief, not of the character of the believer.) You say that "not all religious people are stupid or mad or cretins" - as if any prominent atheist has ever suggested otherwise.

What Dawkins and Harris do is speak their minds without apology and criticize irrational beliefs forthrightly where they have cause to, and they pull no punches for the sake of sparing believers' feelings. This is often confused with personal attacks by thin-skinned people, but there is a clear line, and I do not think they have crossed it. What they have done is to strongly, and rightly, challenge the pernicious meme that religious opinions are above criticism. Such an effort is bound to provoke much sputtering indignation, especially in its initial stages, from people who aren't used to having their sacred cows skewered. But it's still a valuable thing that needs to be done, and we will all be better off for their having done it.

How about incorrect or mistaken? When even smart people can believe wrong things, calling someone a moron for an incorrect opinion is pretty ridiculous, especially when circumstances make falling into error so easy, such as the ubiquity of religion, our brains' tendency to see false patterns, etc.

Yes logically if our position is true you can call them that with some accuracy. But that's not the point.

While it may be tempting, insulting theists has a profoundly negative effect. If you actually want to convince theists to listen to the atheist position (and I do) then insults, whether intentional or perceived can only prevent that.

How do you feel, for example when someone declares that "Atheism is a ridiculous idea, I can't believe atheists are serious about it!"? I would certainly get me irked. This effect may be even more extreme with beliefs that have been cherished since childhood rather than reasoned and debated towards over some time.

Simply challenging a person's beliefs is going to get their back up straight away. That part, as Ebonmuse says, is just tough, but the insulting part we have some control over. If they also think you are laughing at them or deriding them then what you get is a negative emotional reaction, not careful consideration of your arguments.

In my experience people make bad decisions when they are in an emotional state and some marketing campaigns (and religious conversion tactics) rely on this. I am consequently deeply suspicious of anyone who tries to get an emotional reaction out of me. Emotions might help you escape from danger or fight off a predator, but they are the enemy of rational thought.

I believe that the arguments for atheism are convincing, that's not the problem. The problem is getting theists to listen. I am happy to go to great lengths in the way I present my arguments if I think it will help a theist to consider it calmly and seriously.

You said, "But not all religious people are stupid or mad or cretins..."
What should one call someone who believes superstitious nonsense? What does one call a person who talks to and kneels before a nonexistent specter?
.
.

But not all religious people are stupid or mad or cretins, etc., and "faith-head" is used to imply those things. You may like to think that "faith-head" has a more nuanced meaning than that, but that is not what is being communicated. Epithets are blunt instruments, and a vague insult like "faith-head" is especially ham-fisted.

Ebonmuse: "Richard Dawkins does not say that raising a child in any religion is the equivalent of child abuse. What he actually says is that teaching children about Hell as a place of eternal torture, as well as other beliefs that cause great and lasting emotional suffering, should be viewed as the moral equivalent of abuse."

Funny thing, then, that he mentions the issue in the chapter "Childhood, Abuse, and Religion," and after priming the reader by discussing earlier in the chapter what he more explicitly labeled as examples of child abuse. The best that can be said is that he only accidentally implied that he was talking about abuse via the surrounding context, which gets us right back to the problem of Dawkins' behavior feeding the myths.

Ebonmuse: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you arguing that if our opponents perceive our position as too extreme, then that is in fact evidence that we are too extreme?"

No, it is evidence that you are not getting through to your opponents. You are well aware that you are trying to get a message across through media that distorts it. Yet instead of trying to take this into account, you make it easy for you to be interpreted in a negative light, as if all your problems could be solved simply by shouting loud enough.

Ebonmuse: "Nevertheless, you seem to be saying that if people misinterpret Dawkins and then condemn him on the basis of that misinterpretation, that's his fault."

If he facilitates that misinterpretation, damn straight it is.

Ebonmuse: "Trying to foreclose all possibility of that would only result in watering down our argument until it is empty and meaningless, and it seems to me that this is exactly what you're advocating.... But perhaps you'll say I'm being unfair, that I'm not portraying your argument honestly. Fine, then; let's hear what you're actually advocating."

Take a look at Hemant Mehta, Julia Sweeney, or Greta Christina. All of them are blunt about their disbelief and the incorrectness of believing in God, but they don't act like they think believers are imbeciles or have horns on their heads or are generally lunatic. They also make an honest go at trying to understand what believers are saying. That's the number #1 thing I want to see. Number #2 is to make your arguments as bullet-resistant as possible. Imagine having your arguments judged by a jury of the brighter IIDB regulars, like Chris Weimer and Amaleq13 for example, before being unleashed on a wider world. This is especially important for books, where expectations are higher and there is less opportunity for correction. Number #3 is to make clear that evolution doesn't equal atheism. Yes, that is obvious to you, but not to most Christians. Yes, that is a narrow issue, but we're stuck with dealing with it. Make it clear that there are other considerations besides just evolution that lead one to atheism.

We were also "lucky" to have both precedent and the Constitution on our side.

Yes, we were. Again: is it your strategy to hope that we keep on getting lucky indefinitely? If a case on creationism were to reach the Supreme Court, as it is currently assembled, are you completely sure of how they would rule? What if the next justice was appointed by a Republican? Let's not forget that several of the Republican candidates are creationists by their own admission.

I suppose "faith-head" might have worked if Dawkins hadn't used it as a synonym for religious people in general.

But what we are saying is that all religious people, to some extent or another, partake of and perpetuate these problems. After all this time, do you still not grasp the argument we're making? Have you still not figured out that our quarrel is with religion in general and not just the more virulent fundamentalist sects?

That said, it would be a sign that right-wingers thought that this is how the Democrats behaved, which is the point.

Yes, and my point is that the only relevant fact is our actual position, not lies about that position. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you arguing that if our opponents perceive our position as too extreme, then that is in fact evidence that we are too extreme? Our position must be chosen based on what our opponents will think about us for advocating it? If that is not what you're saying, then please explain what you actually mean.

Yet he is in large part responsible for this misconception because he had compared raising a child in a religion to child abuse...

Wrong! You prove my point for me! Richard Dawkins does not say that raising a child in any religion is the equivalent of child abuse. What he actually says is that teaching children about Hell as a place of eternal torture, as well as other beliefs that cause great and lasting emotional suffering, should be viewed as the moral equivalent of abuse.

Once again, this proves my point that Dawkins and other atheists are attacked primarily not for their actual position, but for distortions and misrepresentations of that position. Nevertheless, you seem to be saying that if people misinterpret Dawkins and then condemn him on the basis of that misinterpretation, that's his fault. No, it isn't. It is not our obligation to water down our stance to the point where no one could possibly misinterpret it.

As I've been saying all along, and as I will continue to say, by far the best course of action is a strong, passionate defense of the opinions we actually hold. Every atheist should speak out boldly and say exactly what they feel, and if some believers are offended or upset by that, too bad. It is not our job to spare them all possibility of hurt feelings. It is also not our job to tailor our position so that it cannot possibly be misinterpreted, because that is impossible, and because the ignorant hatemongers of the religious right will lie about us with equal vigor regardless of what we do or do not say. Trying to foreclose all possibility of that would only result in watering down our argument until it is empty and meaningless, and it seems to me that this is exactly what you're advocating. Fortunately, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and other leading atheists have given every indication that they will ignore these irrelevant criticisms and continue speaking their minds. Good for them, I say.

But perhaps you'll say I'm being unfair, that I'm not portraying your argument honestly. Fine, then; let's hear what you're actually advocating. I have yet to hear you explicitly describe your position except in negative terms. What do you think Richard Dawkins should say? What should be our argument? I want to hear some specifics.