Number one on my list of dead-giveaways that I’m dealing with a moron of the first order: when they start whining about “atheist fundamentalists”, comparing a Richard Dawkins to a Pat Robertson, or babbling about how those atheists are just as fanatical and wicked as the fundagelical zealots. When people start in on that line of unreason, all they’re doing is trying to tar atheists with the taint of the wretched works of the Taliban or the American theocrats, without actually addressing any comparisons of substance.

At least one writer at The Economist recognizes the absurdity of the false equivalence. The article would be very good if it hadn’t fallen for number two on my list of peeves: the old “Hitler was an atheist” canard. No, he wasn’t. He was Catholic, leading a largely Catholic country. Not only can’t you blame atheism for the Nazis, but even if he had been an atheist, it would be as ridiculous to fault atheism for his crimes as it would be to accuse Catholicism of being an explicitly genocidal cult bent on world domination by military conquest.

The writer does have a few criticisms of atheists: he says we can be smug and annoying. That’s a fair cop. When you’re an advocate for what is right among the milling herd of gullible, superstitious jebus-worshippers, though, I think a little smugness is warranted.

Some people are quite rightly appalled that Bill Maher won the Richard Dawkins Award from AAI, and is at the top of the list of speakers at the AAI conference. I sympathize; Maher certainly has some wacky ideas, and I even gave him a mixed review on his movie, Religulous. (I also must repeat a clarification: the Richard Dawkins Award is not given by Richard Dawkins or the Richard Dawkins Foundation: it is an award by Atheist Alliance International, named after Richard Dawkins.)

However, let’s be clear about the obvious. He is being given this award for making a movie this year that clearly promotes atheism and mocks religion, and that’s all that is being endorsed. Not many people have done that, and it’s especially unusual in that it was a movie entirely about ridiculing religion, and it was a mainstream movie with wide circulation. That’s it. It would be difficult to ignore, and it’s something AAI would like to promote.

Let’s be clear about something else. This is atheism: we have no dogma, we have no infallible leaders, everyone is naturally flawed, and we recognize that within our ranks there is a huge diversity of opinion. Our strategy for dealing with these ideas is the same as the scientific approach — constant, relentless criticism. There is no Atheist Supreme Leader. There is no Atheist Pope. There is no Godless Ruling Council, no Atheist Inquisition, no Freethought Dogma.

What that means, of course, is that it is open season on everything and everyone. Everyone going to the AAI convention should be enthusiastically prepared to cheer wildly when Maher says something right and reasonable and even funny about religion, and if he brings up anti-vax woo or anti-research fluff, you should be equally prepared to pull out the rhetorical knives. I think anyone speaking at this convention should be aware that they are not there to receive unthinking hugs and kisses from an adoring audience of fans — they should come with ideas to make everyone think, and they should know that they will get arguments.

So that’s our answer to the other, most unfortunate idiocies which Maher espouses. Let’s make him uncomfortable. Don’t be shy about asking pointed questions and making him squirm. It’ll be fun. It’ll also be safe, because a majority of the audience will be feeling the same way about him.

This is also true for all of the other speakers^*. They’re supposed to make you think, and you’re supposed to make them think. Keep ’em all honest.

^*Well, except for me. You can just show up for my talk on militant atheism (title so far: “Don’t Tread on Me”) and blow me kisses.

The wikipedia article on “New Atheism” is nothing short of a travesty. It mentions nothing of the fact that the people associated with this “New Atheism” clearly state that there is nothing “new” about it, and the only sources it cites are Andrew Brown, who has become something of a mewling whiner about it, and Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary! It even talks about “Doctrines”, as if we have any!

It does list books by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens…but doesn’t bother to say word one about what’s actually in them.

This is an article that actually belongs on Conservapædia—it is that bad.

---

Here’s the old version of the page that I was criticizing. If you go to the “New Atheist” page now, it redirects to the entry on atheism in general. Good, fast work!

A professor of religion has decided that atheism is in decline and the “New Atheists” are over. Why? Because sales of books by the “New Atheists” have declined since their release several years ago, Karen Armstrong has published her silly book, and surveys show that atheists are still a minority. And the reason they flopped is because atheists are such mean poopieheads.

In other words, more bleary-eyed wishful thinking from a mind squicked by religion. Gosh, yes, older books sell at a much lower volume than fresh, new releases. And if you want to claim a trend, you can’t just cite data from one time point — you need at least two. He also thinks atheism needs to be “kinder, gentler and (most of all) wiser”. Sorry, guy. I gave all my “kinder, gentler” to my mom, and all I’ve got left is kick-ass for you…and it’s a funny definition of “wiser” that means “believe in angels”.

Besides, Mr Religion Professor ought to be reading the Christian Science Monitor, which reports that atheism is growing. Unlike Mr RP, they at least know that you need to report prior numbers compared to current numbers if you want to talk about a trend. He tut-tuts over a mere 15% of the population reporting a lack of religion. The CSM says,

Some 15 percent of Americans claim no religious affiliation, up from 8.2 percent in 1990, according to Trinity College’s American Religious Identification Survey, released in March. Also, the American Humanist Association claims 20,000 financial supporters. That marks a doubling from five years ago, says spokeswoman Karen Frantz.

It’s got much more evidence, too. My subjective feeling from visiting many freethought groups over the years has been one of remarkable growth and booming enthusiasm; the article confirms that with reports of enrollment numbers and donation figures.

Mr Religion Professor needs to stick to his day job. At least there, making stuff up and imaginary figures are considered normal.

All right, I’ve got a Horde: a vicious mob of savages slavering over the prospect of conquest and booty. I’ve got to start using you more. Here are some people who have been asking for it:

• No Jesus, no peas
• A Pile of Blog
• Mors Dei
• The Pile System
• Why Evolution is True

Fly, my pretties, fly! Invade their blogs and leave comments and jack up their traffic and…and…stuff. That will teach them! Yarrrr!

I have another army arising, too. Remember, the SSA and I are going to the Creation “Museum” on 7 August. It’s going to be huge: last I heard, we’ve got 70 people signed up to descend on the place. I hope we have enough horses and lances to go around.

It’s got me thinking, though. With that many people, we want to stand out a little bit, and be able to recognize each other, so I have a request: all you godless heathens at the “museum” should wear an armband. Any color will do, and in fact a diversity of colors would be best to represent the diversity of our views, anyway — just tie a handkerchief or something around one arm when you go. Let everyone know what side you are on and what you represent: maybe a few of the other attendees will ask you who all those people with the armbands are, and you can politely explain to them what’s going on, and encourage them to ask us questions.

You should also tell them that all the people with armbands are laughing at them.

The new word is faitheists.