Maybe I missed the answer to this, and I respect your desire for anonymity, but could you tell me whether you’re a professor? Are you a student, or a postdoc or a Research Scientist? Are the “colleagues” you mention professors, or students? Are their superiors that you mention deans or something, or are they professors?

Sorry if I’m off-base here.

There were “celebrity figures” at these events? Where did you get that idea?

And I would ‘lose my job’? Of course not! It might make work a living nightmare for me, but I wouldn’t lose my job.

Welcome to the world of new atheist polemics in which nothing is too low for them to imply.

A random commenter with a known axe to grind against atheists makes a series of claims.

Points which would get Mooney fired for this post if he actually tried to submit it to a newspaper:

1: The nature of the claim is that the insults were being thrown in public, in meetings which involved celebrity figures (Dawkins’ face is used to cover most atheist events, no matter how vague to non-existant his involvement in them are.) Yet instead of “Exhibit A: and here is the video/legitimate press coverage so you can see for yourself” Mooney leaves it at that. One anynomous source on the internet.

2: There are no specific events named and there is no way to check up those claims, yet Mooney again, takes it at face value.

3: This post was not a statement of opinion, it was not an interpretation of events, it is an accusation of fact, which in journalism always requires investigation. Mooney then goes on to try and paint it as the former two – in order to avoid the negative scrutiny this places on his conduct as a journalist.

Without corroboration what you have is someone who could be anyone saying something on the internet which could very well be defamation. If this had gone in a newspaper the paper would be open to a lawsuit and the paper would lose.

4: There are elements of this series of posts which raise major alarms – the poster wants to remain anonymous yet claims professional standing which is held in high regard within this community. The poster refuses to give evidence on this for fear of losing his or her job, a serious accusation against universities which echoes those of “Expelled.”

It should be needless to say that the accusations within that movie have been thoroughly discredited on investigation, as have similar claims. Not only that, but the official position of most scientific bodies in the US is neutral to religion. The only way such a criticism of PZ Myers, or Dawkins could threaten a posters job in a university is if it was found to be untrue.

Yet Mooney takes it at face value.

I am just glad that Mooney doesn’t work for my news organisation, because frankly if this is the standard of critical thinking behind his articles, I shudder to think what he is doing to Discover Magazine.

Really, gillt? You’ll say that the NAs argue for a “plurality of strategies” after the NAs have spent four days now trying to discredit a guy who advocates a strategy other than theirs? Really?! Willful ignorance, anyone?

Remember, Tom Johnson pointed out in subsequent posts that he doesn’t think the NAs should stop – he just thinks it’s much less effective than a respectful disagreement (I think he even said somewhere he will tell believers he disagrees with them, but without contempt?) Yet the NAs keep on attacking….

A “plurality,” indeed. *facedesk*

Go look at # 93 at the link I provide at # 197 above to see. That’s for any rational people who might be following this part of the discussion, then look at #2 of gillt’s comment at 199 on this thread.

Sorbet, you are just silly.