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.
