I should apologise, woot. I seem to have confused my super heroes. If David is Atheist Man, that must make you the equivalent of Batman's Robin - Boy wonder and utterer of inanities.

Holy Free Thinker!

Picture the scene - centre stage at the convention....

Boy Woot - "Golly gosh!, I'm used to seeing you do the impossible, but getting out of that telephone box was impossible!"

Atheist Man - "Much easier than it seemed, woot. I simply held my breath."

Boy woot - "Holy Frogman!....by the way, I dig your threads."

Atheist Man - "No time for compliments, woot. We must find some religious hegemony to thwart - to the Atheistmobile!"

Come to think of it, this convention might be worth attending after all.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc:
<Only the poster(s) who is/are guilty of supercilious twaddle will respond to this.>

“Supercilious” is the perfect word to describe the New Atheists (and I’ve applied it to him/them before now). It’s not merely the swaggering of the new atheist that’s objectionable, it’s the cock-suredness, and the absolute poverty of thinking that underwrites it.
I may appear confident in my polemics and assertions on this and other topics, but the truth is I’m anything but. I’m not so much opinionated as putting hypotheses out there to have them tested. This is the great value of forums like OLO imo; not to trenchantly maintain a view, but to test it, and to be prepared to bend. I’m actually far less confident in my views than I was a few years ago, be it on atheism or anything else. I’ve come to see that opposing positions can be equally compelling and that, at the very least, nothing’s black and white. Judging by their representations on OLO, this is something the dogmatic New Atheists have yet to learn.
There’s a great deal of depth and complexity in both theistic and atheistic positions and philosophies, unfortunately we don’t see much of either; both sides are too busy torching straw-men.
Hopefully next time D Nichols will test an article based on “atheist theology”, if I can call it that, rather than trying to draw kudos from beating up on his puerile conceptions of theism. You can’t build a legitimate following purely on being anti-something, fomenting intolerance in the name of spurious freedoms. You have to offer a genuine alternative, underwritten by more than clichés.
Lose the lycra (I'm seeing your vision, Poirot:) and get some depth!

The ol’ Blunderbuss method might take out a few unintended casualties but overall some of the projectiles do reach the aimed at target(s). :))

It is hellishly busy here, so I must be off.

“Up, up and away!”

David

"You can’t build a legitimate following purely on being anti-something, fomenting intolerance in the name of spurious freedoms. You have to offer a genuine alternative, underwritten by more than clichés."

It's not about a following, it's about atheists simply speaking up rather than staying silent because bigots howl them down if their privilege is threatened, or socially banish them once they come out as atheists. Loud and proud.

Hearing those that have the privilege not to be personally affected whine about it is neither here nor there to those that are. It's sad that they relate everyone's experience to their own rather than see an outcry as a reflection of a deep problem. It's simply arrogance to do so.

There is alternatives offered and discussed. Reasoning and logic is undervalued especially considering the value put on faith in our society and around the globe. This affects different people in different ways. It allows us to talk about issues in society where religion garners rights above and beyond others and how to tackle them. It is about promoting the fact it is ok to be atheist, and folk are not alone. It is about curbing the bigotry toward those that do not believe that is prevalent in our communities. It is about showing solidarity with others that have been oppressed and or victimised by institutions, individuals and sects. In regard how decisions should be based on their merits. That inquiry and doubt are essential checks against deception, self deception, and error, and that logic and proper empirical method is the only way the whole world can arrive at an agreement on the truth about anything.

Not having a belief in a god does not stop people from considering all that is, and revelling in the wonder and beauty of the universe and our inspection of it, of discussing concepts like anyone else. Rather than just be told from thousand year old scriptures, we inspect concepts and ideas, build upon good ideas and if found to be flawed, start again. This process is a method that is self-correcting.

David,

Hang on...

Here one minute and gone the next.

Holy hole in a doughnut - what happened?

Darn those super powers....

Oh dear, woot. Now it's the "poor me, the victim" schtick.

>>It's not about a following, it's about atheists simply speaking up rather than staying silent because bigots howl them down if their privilege is threatened, or socially banish them once they come out as atheists. Loud and proud.<<

It looks as though you are classifying atheists as some form of downtrodden, disadvantaged group, constantly under threat from "bigots".

Social banishment for atheists? Maybe in your imagination, but certainly not in my world. I have been consciously atheist for very many years, and have not been "socially banished", ever. Not once. Perhaps it would help us understand your sense of victimhood, woot, if you were able to provide a couple of examples.

>>Hearing those that have the privilege not to be personally affected whine about it is neither here nor there to those that are.<<

So, by all means, share.

We are all listening, with boundless sympathy for our downtrodden atheist brethren at the ready.

You see, we do care.