Rosineau hardly presented himself well when, confronting data that challenged one of his core assumptions and one of the foundational elements of his internet persona, he invoked centuries-old cliches to try to make it look like he was really right after all.

The whole point is that there is no real evidence that New Atheists have ever harmed anything above and beyond the constant “asking-for-it-from-the-faithful” background level of provocation that exists just by virtue of any atheist of any stripe ever existing. It would be nice if people would re-evaluate some of their old prejudices based on this data.

I just agree with Josh Rosineau’s recent comment: “It’s a myth that there’s no such thing as bad publicity: if no one knows who you are, it’s all the more crucial to present yourself well.”

If NORML thinks that the best face of its movement is a bunch of youngish stoned people with their fists in the air storming the public square–what are they, high? Why yes they are. And those college kids forming an identity group around pot should get a life too.

And I don’t think that Dawkins and Dennett are analogous to pot activists or “leather buddies”–I’m just saying identity groups aren’t necessarily all goodness, or all effective, even when I agree with some of their goals.

It’s encouraging to note that atheists become less threatening the more common they are, unlike racial minorities. Perhaps we’re simply becoming more tolerant of diversity and more open to considering belief a matter of choice. Perhaps the lapses of clergy, without respect to denomination, have dulled the luster of professions of sanctity enough to allow the suspicion that the conspicuously pious aren’t dependably good.

Once we godless are understood to be approximately like everyone else in their quotidian concerns [only eating babies in kitten sauce on Tuesday afternoon] then what? It will be easier to teach biology – evolution, ecology and sex included; people won’t turn up their noses at relativity and uncertainty, and it will be generally appreciated that hummus can be as tasty as guacamole.

Whereas sentencing nonviolent college kids to be raped in prison because they “committed” a harmless, victimless, trivial “crime” which everybody condemning them has already done themselves….. is positive?

The idea that the gay rights movement was non-confrontational is false. The catalyst for the movement was the Stonewall Riots, and, as the name suggests, were anything but non-confrontational. We may not be rioting now, but the gay community didn’t get to where it’s at by simply “agreeing to disagree” with those that view us as deviants.

The same can be said for the new atheist movement. Dawkins, Hitchens, and others may be blunt at times, but so are the Christian right that like to tell us were going to hell. They’re sure not holding back in regards to pushing their creationist agendas’ through the public school system and restricting marriage on the federal and state level. Why should we continue to play with the kids gloves on, when they’re clearly playing for keeps?

A review of attempts by New Atheists to substitute culture with science:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2011/03/blackburn-ethics-without-god-secularism-religion-sam-harris/

Hitchens on the King James Bible:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/05/hitchens-201105

Or bloodshot stoners with their fists in the air at a NORML rally. You can form an identity group around a lot of things, not all of them positive.