Answering the questions
I hear the HNN wants to know what we less-than-polite atheists should be called due to Epstein’s power play. My answers:
- Do you think it’s OK to refer to certain atheists as being atheist fundamentalists?
No, I don’t. The use of this word in this context is wrong. It is not an epithet and anyone who uses it in such a manner is not only ignorant, but is also contributing to the general ignorance of the American public as it relates to religious beliefs. Hostility, rudeness, bluntness and so forth does not make one any more a fundamentalist than having a general distaste for dogs makes one a Muslim.
- Is there a better term than “fundamentalist” to describe those non-believers who are uncompromising in their blunt criticism of religious beliefs?
There shouldn’t be a “better term”. If you think Richard Dawkins is blunt, use the word blunt. If you think Sam Harris is hostile, use hostile. Don’t make shit up and don’t misuse words to suit your agenda.
- What do you think about labeling certain atheists or humanists as extreme, militant or intolerant?
I think it’s a vicious attack upon their characters and severely disapprove of such behaviour. I also personally question the integrity of the person making such claims.
- Do you believe that the non-religious should take a soft or a blunt approach to speaking out against religion?
I think that the answer to this question is personal and each of us must answer this for ourselves. However, I firmly believe that each of us is entitled to speak what we wish in the manner we wish tempered only by the actual physical safety of our ‘opponents’.
- How can “New Atheists” and “New Humanists” work together?
As one of the “new atheists”, cease your damn lies and I’ll consider working with you ‘new humanists’. Until then, you can quite frankly kiss my ass.
What about you, dear reader? What are your answers? Do share.
![Why [some] atheists care about religion](http://bligbi.com/wp-content/themes/greenchilli/images/relthumb.png)
Do you think it’s OK to refer to certain atheists as being atheist fundamentalists?
No. The word fundamentalist carries with it a “religious” meaning and is too close to “extremist” which carries with it a terrorist connotation.
Is there a better term than “fundamentalist†to describe those non-believers who are uncompromising in their blunt criticism of religious beliefs?
Atheist is just fine with me. There may be different flavors of atheism (strong, weak, friendly, etc) but it is all atheism no matter how you roll the dice. I think the whole idea of labeling the style of atheism has to do with the fact that some people are fine just being an atheist while others (like myself and you) are more vocal about it. We see atheism as a rational alternative to thousands of years of religious oppression, murder and mind control and we care enough about other people to be naive enough to think we can open their eyes.
What do you think about labeling certain atheists or humanists as extreme, militant or intolerant?
There will always be labels because labels make people feel like they know what they are talking about. If I call someone a fundie then you know what I mean. If someone calls me a godless sack of shit, then I know what they mean. A label gives someone the false security that they know what they are talking about and props themselves up to seem better than the person they are labeling. Personally I don’t care. If someone wants to label me militant, blunt, a dick or whatever I can’t stop them. Maybe, if I’m smart I’ll do something similar to what the black community did with the n word and make it my own.
Do you believe that the non-religious should take a soft or a blunt approach to speaking out against religion?
It’s a matter of personal taste. For some people it’s enough just to be an atheist, for others we want more. It takes all kinds. There are plenty of people who believe who don’t feel it necessary to ring doorbells or hold up picket signs at military funerals and abortion clinics.
How can “New Atheists†and “New Humanists†work together?
I don’t know what either of these terms means. Personally I want to spread the word and fight for atheism. If someone wants to help me – great! If they have an idea I feel like supporting then I will. If they piss me off then they piss me off. I do feel there should be some solidarity though because the religious right has made great inroads into government, law and society by sticking together.
Atheists do need to do the same thing too but we lack leadership. Sure, Dawkins is a heck of a guy but I wouldn’t follow him into battle because he’s not exactly leadership material in my opinion. If Carl Sagan were alive I’d follow his lead but that’s just because I liked the guy.
Atheists need people in the public eye who can play to a wide audience and appease the most atheists. Dawkins is a polarizing figure and many atheists are fairly split about their perception of him. Atheists need a Clintonesque figure who is good at compromise, has a good personality, is down to earth and intelligent but is also tough. Only though mobility and leadership will atheism ever become a viable social alternative.