If you’re not on my side about this morning’s post (and that’s totally fine – Brent didn’t particularly appreciate it either), and think that my handful of naughty words inhibited your ability to see my argument, I offer you a much cleaner (and therefore more correct, by Brent’s standards) version of my position, courtesy of Mr. Jason Thibeault:

This is pretty much exactly what I was upset about — the fact that people will always disagree with our positions, and we will be called strident firebrands no matter how sugar-coated we make our writings. The very fact that we’re mostly certain there’s no deity is enough of an affront to people who are not only certain of a deity, but a specific one, that we will be viewed as strident whether we’re actually being so or not.

Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, et al, consider their words very carefully. I do too, in fact. Even when I’m extraordinarily frustrated with being told I’m incapable of morality or as bad as Hitler, I take great pains to consider every retort before posting. And when it comes down to it, there are people that are ACTUALLY strident and ACTUALLY offensive on the other side of the argument, who hardly consider their words before spewing them, and nobody’s ever pointing at them and saying they’re dragging down the discourse.

The tone debate is problematic specifically because you’re asking someone to do what they’re doing differently. Instead, you should be doing what you’re doing the way you feel is proper and correct, and let the other units on the field do their thing. By sniping at people on the same side as you, you’re actually stirring back up the whole debate about whose tone is worth being presented as the public face of atheism and whose is not — you’re the one with the gun, shooting the foot of the guy next to you.

One thing you’ll never hear from Myers is that Chris Mooney should stop presenting his arguments the way he does, except as where they concern him directly. What you argue, concerns me directly. I do not feel I have ever been unreasonable in any of my argumentation, despite being branded by theists as strident, sarcastic and unreasonable in previous debates. I have been accused of such, for the mere sin of not being uncertain and not submitting to wishy-washy illogic. I am painted with the broad brush of the attack by theists on atheists in general, and by attempting to “call for civility”, you are throwing the rest of us under the bus and saying to the opponents in this debate, “look guys, I’m much more reasonable than them!”

I have absolutely no intention of asking someone else of changing their own tone. The only thing I ask of you, is to please target elsewhere. You’re hitting your own side, by feeding the argument that all atheists are abrasive. I don’t particularly like that fact, especially where I suspect you may not be aware that this is mostly trumped up.

Your personal experiences with certain atheists notwithstanding, of course. They balance out the fire-and-brimstone-breathers, in my estimation. And anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all.

Personal highlights for me:

• “you’re the one with the gun, shooting the foot of the guy next to you”
• “I do not feel I have ever been unreasonable in any of my argumentation, despite being branded by theists as strident, sarcastic and unreasonable in previous debates. I have been accused of such, for the mere sin of not being uncertain and not submitting to wishy-washy illogic.”
• “You’re hitting your own side, by feeding the argument that all atheists are abrasive. I don’t particularly like that fact, especially where I suspect you may not be aware that this is mostly trumped up.”

If you buy into a fraudulent argument created by your opponents, you’ll spend all your time fighting a lie rather than actually dealing with your issues. Thanks Mr. Thibeault.