Take a look at this, over at RDnet forum ...

[charlou]

This guy tells it like it is, no holds barred ...

[charlou]

For those without access or who would rather read it here :

New Atheists Angry? I Can't Imagine Why.

I feel as though I am among a growing number of atheists that once were resolved to a more passive, less argumentative view of atheism as it is part of the larger national (international) conversation. I have always felt that if ever there was an atheist agenda, or a positive argument to be made for encouraging the observance of reality in a natural way, it would be promoted better using a less confrontational method. Until recently, I have modeled my approach after Paul Kurtz’s view reflected in many of his writings, notably his editorial in the latest edition of Free Inquiry: “The True Unbeliever”. Until now, I have always believed it to be a clearer, better approach to any problem or situation. After all, irrational beliefs and ignorance are at the crux of most, if not all of society’s problems. After having been actively engaged in the god conversation for several years, it takes every ounce of strength I have, and every rational bone in my body to keep from verbally assaulting an apologist when he or she uses the “offended” card.
I have discussed Professor Dawkin’s books, notably “The God Delusion” with religious people and have been continually struck by their perception that Professor Dawkins comes across as “angry” and what has been described as “intellectual snobbery”. I believe “frustrated” more accurately describes the writing as I share this frustration. These perceptions are often cited as the reason for not finishing the book, or worse, dismissing the publication as a ranting from one of the “New Atheists”. Before we dismiss this as just another double standard from religious people, it must be noted that the market on “anger” and “intellectual snobbery” has been cornered by organized religions since their respective inceptions. How people can apply such labels to “New Atheists” when this has been the modus operandi of religious bigotry the world over is beyond comprehension, but then so is every argument made for religious belief.
For those religious apologists that question how and why the “New Atheists” (I can not speak for Professor Dawkins) can come across as angry. I believe I am in a position to answer. Since questioning religious thought and teachings, beginning as a typical, curious and skeptical eight-year-old, I have been condemned and sentenced to burn in eternal fires somewhere between the third and fourth planes of Hell. I have been blamed (at least partially) for the natural disasters and destruction caused by an angry, vengeful god. My life, and my family’s lives have been threatened, my home and property has been vandalized. I am taxed to support faith-based religious organizations that lobby for anti-gay discrimination. My children must endure relentless bullying in school and are required (though not forced) to cite a pledge to god and country. I may only vote for politicians that either lie about their faith or profess to be of a Judeo-Christian belief system despite the “no religious test” of the U.S. Constitution. I am required to provide 101% proof positive that my “theories” are valid yet must accept that other beliefs do not require any evidence at all to the contrary. I must accept historical revisionism to the extent that the United States, a country founded on the enlightened ideals of men rising from the ashes of the Dark Ages, the very people that ushered in an “Age of Reason”, is really a country founded on the dogmas of the christian religions.
I am angry because I see the egregious double standards religious people have but can not understand, the insufferable short-sightedness of religious fundamentalism: The doctors murdered, mercy killings, suicide bombings, and intellectual child abuse all committed in the name of religion. I am sickened to no end that all attempts to make the world a better place are suppressed by one church or another. I have seen too many people die while clergymen interject biblical insanity into the ethics of genetics and stem cell research. I have watched the education of sexual reproduction reduced to the blinding mis-information of “abstinence only” programs, and the shameless promotion of ignorance. I have to watch as my local schools allow open access to members of the military and clergy. Most of all, I am angry that I live in a world where people who attempt to forge an understanding of our natural world in an observable, testable way are so often disregarded, discredited and considered insane, yet people that believe in the impossible, imaginary, and delusional are the ones defining the terminology.
I do not mean for this essay to be a call to arms for all atheists, and I most certainly do not want to incite ill-will or more especially violence toward religious people, but I will take advantage of this opportunity to express to the world the extent of my frustration. The religious arguments will never play by the rules, they will not go to a museum to look at fossil evidence, they will not be objective if they did, and factual information is nothing more than an imaginary pommel horse on which to perform mental gymnastics. We non theists are not gaining any respect, credibility, or political ground by being passive in our approach. I rarely am greeted with the same level of respect only hostility, resentment, and unacceptable rules of engagement. I apologize in advance to Mr. Kurtz for what I am about to write: I am done being a nice guy. I am angry and fed-up with what I see as nothing more than stall tactics as a means of preserving the status quo. I am with Dr. Dawkins when I say it is time to stop letting X-tian apologists off the hook. Until they are able to establish some credibility for their side of the argument; get out of my government, my research, my schools, my paycheck, and my life.

[FedUpWithFaith]

It's weird. One of my very first posts at RD over 3 years ago was very similar to that one.

[Bella Fortuna]

[FedUpWithFaith]

No, I didn't mean to imply it was me Bella. I don't post there.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No, I didn't mean to imply it was me Bella. I don't post there.

Liir doesn't half sound fed up with faith though.

[FedUpWithFaith]

Getting back to your original post...

It voices a similar change in my own stance on atheism towards religion. Although I've always had an inclination to an in-your-face argumentative approach to religion, I choose early on when I was young to follow more of the Stephen J. Gould/apartheid magisteria path and accord religion a wide berth and respect. In some ways this was necessitated by the country and area where I grew up. You couldn't persuade many people or have friends if you campaigned to have them remove their creche from public places. I felt the better policy was to be positive, friendly,funny, and deferential and shine the light of reason whenever I could and clench my teeth as the nonsense passed by my ears.. I contributed to skeptics groups but never atheist groups. I fought woo as much as religion - and still do. It's one of the reasons I became a scientist.

I did not feel sympathy with any organized atheist group in the US and I never joined any atheist group or organization until RDF, In fact, for much of my life I shunned organized atheists who seemed too far out and kooky to me. When a group is very marginalized by society, often the worst extreme types take the stage. Madelaine Murray O'Hair, for instance, was not somebody I wanted to be associated with even though I'm glad she got forced prayer out of the public schools. Too many ordinary atheists, in my opinion, just wanted to go negative and offered nothing positive. My role models were Carl Sagan and George Carlin. Enlighten and be funny.

Being socially liberal but a fiscal conservative, (I'm an oddball mix of a Libertarian who nonetheless believes in the Social Contract) often presented me with hard-to-swallow political choices. I wanted much of the economic aspects of the Reagan revolution and none of its social BS. By the Presidency of Bush II, the pendulum had just swung too far into nutty territory - Increasing religious interference from religion in govt. - stem cells, religious jingoism, etc., etc. etc. At the same time, I watched fundamentalist Muslims kill over 3000 of my fellow citizens, including some acquaintances. I was getting increasingly angry and fed up. Humanity can't afford this nonsense any longer. It's simply time for religion to go.

Obviously, I wasn't the only one. Harris, Dawkins, and others rode this wave of malcontent at the perfect time in history. A perfect storm of havoc and stupidity created an opportunity for a New Atheism that no longer felt it had to stay in the closet and feign respect for Bronze Age irrationality. My boys tell me atheism is cool now in school and the latest polls show 28% of younger people are now atheist or agnostic in the US. I stopped clenching my teeth and holding back and let my natural inclinations loose.

Having said all that, I do believe its good to have all kinds in the atheist tent from the activists to the apathetic. We have to look like everybody else because we mostly are like everybody else. As I've written before, we need our provocateur Dawkins/Malcolm X types as well as the peacemaking Martin Luthor King/Dennett variety of atheist. But one thing hasn't changed in my view. Atheists, or perhaps better - rationalists, need to lead and promote what we're for in a positive way more than emphasize the negatives of everything we despise. We need to try and find more ways to say "yes" than "no". We can do it with humor. Movements that rely on the stick over the carrot rarely succeed in the long haul.