Your hypothetical conversation is very accurate---believers will quickly try to pin you down by asking if you believe; if you admit your atheism they have an attack plan at the ready--"so, you're an atheist, then?"--then you're on the defensive and the subject of the conversation has now changed to something entirely different. This is called obfuscation (see: Coulter, Ann).

You never have to say that you're anything, just keep pushing the believers to prove their god's existence. Ask them about some of the terrible things their bible advocates.

Believe me, they can get a little testy when you push hard enough!

With passionate, dedicated spokespeople like Richard Dawkins to effectively defend atheism in public and rally nonbelievers to come out and organize (the focus of his new Out Campaign), it seems a true atheist movement is taking shape.

Professor Dawkins is clearly an excellent agitator, and I won't deny his charisma. But I wonder if the...movement ought to invest quite so much of itself in a single figure, regardless of any faults he may or may not have. After all, Dawkins did not found atheism; there are plenty of other great minds who have something to say on the subject.

The public perception of atheism is no longer merely "disbelief in God", or even "a movement with the clearly stated goals A, B and C." It is become "something Richard Dawkins is famous for preaching about", or even -- bloggers and ministers of logic defend us! -- "the latest intellectual fad." Celebrity has its place in any movement, but I worry that we are allowing it to replace justice and good argument.

Lots to think about in your reply and I thank you for it. I'm going to try the tactic myself and see what happens.

I can tell you why it touched a nerve in me: by advocating "flying under the radar", the implication is that rationality and disbelief are shameful, good enough only to be hidden. Further, in so doing, the true weight of numbers we have will be misrepresented by the militant faithful as evidence of our decline, when in fact all the metrics indicate the opposite. Finally, any atheist who refuses to take a vow of silence will be asked why others are so afraid to subject their lack of faith to any sort of scrutiny.

I personally agree with OMGF et al in arguing for the taking back of the word. It is indeed the banner under which I serve. And if some fanatic has a mistaken impression of my position, that only works in my favor in debate, for when he is shown wrong, his credibility is impugned. Such an honest presentation will never change the mind of the fanatics, but those aren't the minds we should be working at anyways.

We should be dialoguing with faithful moderates, who generally are more willing to apply reason to a matter. And the first step should not be to rid the world of religion, even if we could (that would be too threatening to believers, and sure to chase them away). The first step should be working with moderate believers to guarantee the freedom of conscience to every person.

Our silence would harm this goal, perhaps irreparably.

It has been my experience that if you fly under the radar, there will always be someone who is willing to take over and fly over the radar. This person may have a lot less qualification and knowledge than you do but since he is on the radar screen and making noise, he is heard while you are unnoticed.

I am an atheist. If a person chooses to be religious then that is their problem, not mine. If they choose to judge me negatively for not believing unfalsifiable claims that they speak without any proof, then that is also their problem.

I will not be silent and fly under the radar and one day find myself under American Islamic Sharia Law... forget being quiet... I proclaim that religion is a lie, religious people are hypocrits and that they are really after your money and your subjugation.

I mean really, how's a conversation going to go with a believer, using Harris' smashing new rhetorical strategy:

Since I've actually had exchanges like this with a co-worker who stuck a bible in my face, at work, I'll take a stab at this.

Believer: "Well, because [$God,$Allah,$IPU] says so!"

!Atheist: "You're making that claim without evidence. What's your proof that [$God,$Allah,$IPU] even exists?"

Believer: "Don't you believe in [$God,$Allah,$IPU]?"

!Atheist: "No, I don't"

Here's where the atheist makes a mistake. He's allowed the believer to define the terms of the argument and put the atheist in a defensive position. A better response might be, "I didn't say that. I asked you for proof that your god exists. Are you going to answer my question?" This steers the point of the conversation back to where it needs to be---putting pressure on the believers to prove the existence of their god. This is what I believe Harris is trying to advocate. He spoke of using the word "reason." We, as atheists, have the power to prevent the faithful from defining us in a negative light, and his weapons for battle are reason and knowledge. They have already attached a negative connotation to the word "atheist," using it like a slur, as portrayed here by heliobates:

Believer: "So, you're an atheist!"

We can avoid getting to this point by keeping the focus on the believers to prove their beliefs, instead of letting them control the terms of the debate. I am pretty sure this is what Harris is after. I think it can be effective, too, since I've used this strategy with the above-mentioned nutjob who stuck his bible in my face at work. Never once did I say I was an atheist, but he repeatedly tried to paint me with that brush, spitting the word out at me like it was the worst insult you could throw at someone. I just kept saying that his reasoning might be good enough for him, but I needed much more. The conversation always ended with him saying, "you just gotta believe!" He usually looked defeated, but came in every Monday with "new" ammunition to shoot at me, obviously picking up tips from his pastor over the weekend. Of course, I didn't win him over, but I didn't let him define me, either. A victory, if you ask me.

Following E-Mail sent to CBC on the topic of their piece (The Atheists: Spreading the Word): "I was not sure whether to be worried or happy about your piece "The Atheists: Spreading the Word". After having watched it, I'm still not sure which side of me was right.

I was rather disappointed with the lack of focus on the specific arguments of atheists. Flipping between an angry Sam Harris and a calm, moderate theologian is certainly far easier - and far less controversial. Promoting atheism may not be the goal of the CBC, but given the title of your piece, I expected the focus to be one the actual reasons we are atheists - not angry references to the bloodthirstiness of the Old Testament's god or mocking comparisons to Santa Claus.

Firstname Lastname
Town, Province"

Alrighty, just watched the bit on CBC - "The Atheists: Spreading the Word"…

Neato, I just watched it as well. Decent exposure, I thought.

Oh, and Elfstone, if my response to you is more heat than light, I apologize. Dunno why that speech touched a nerve with me, but it did.