plf515 celebrates the season with this thread that equates atheists with religious extremists.
In particular, Richard Dawkins is taken to task.
More...
Perhaps the most vocal atheist right now is Richard Dawkins. When Dawkins writes about science, no one is better. He's clear, knowledgeable, impassioned ... his science books are fantastic. When he writes about religion, however, he makes me want to be a believer.
...
But it's not atheists vs. believers. It isn't (say) me and Richard Dawkins on one side and noweasels and Fred Phelps on the other. Nope. It's me and noweasels on one side, and Richard Dawkins and Fred Phelps on the other. Now, I know Dawkins would hate Phelps, and vice versa. But the ways they speak about what they believe make them natural allies. They are - ists.
plf515 presents no evidence to support this. It's just one more example of the radical agnostic insisting that he's right, and the rest of us are wrong:
And this pattern of behavior, as far as I can tell, happens to all - ists. - Ists go from "I am right, you are wrong" to "I am right, you are wrong, therefore you are an idiot", and from there to "I am right, you are wrong, you are harming the world" and from there .... well, here comes the cross and the gulag and the guillotine.
You'll note that plf515 makes a, shall we say, leap of faith in saying that atheists will bring us to gulags and guillotines.
Why do "The New Atheists" (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and others) feel compelled to argue in favor of atheism? We get enough trash talk from the -ists on the other side, the argument goes. Why doesn't everybody just shut up? Maybe I want to be irrational!
What I'm hearing from the atheist side is, go ahead and be irrational, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. See how radical and angry Dawkins comes across in this interview with Paula Zahn (and stick around for the panel discussion to see an early television appearance by Rachel Maddow in an unfortunate hairstyle).
In America, we accept the gradual, increasing imposition of religious beliefs into areas where it has no business. According to a Gallup poll from 2007, 53% of Americans would not vote for an atheist for President. Being an atheist is unthinkable to a majority of Americans. Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, a woman, black, Hispanic, homosexual, 72 years of age, and someone married for the third time, all of these would be acceptable as President. Who are the -ists that would deny a qualified individual from any of these categories? It's not atheists.
Bill O'Reilly's War on Christmas is a war waged on behalf of imposing Chritianity on the populace. There are no atheists or secularists battling on the other side. Who are the -ists that would insist that retail stores wish "Merry Christmas" to their customers, be they Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or Other? It's not atheists.
The evolution/creation debate was settled already, 80 years ago. Why does it keep coming up? Who are the -ists that would impose religion in science classes? It's not atheists.
Who are the -ists that would deny a couple who love one another the right to marry? It's not atheists.
Who are the -ists that would spray acid in the faces of innocent schoolgirls who would dare to defy the prevailing religious culture in Afghanistan by committing the ungodly crime of going to school?? It's not atheists.
The list goes on and on.
There is no shame in proclaiming your faith in a supernatural being from every mountaintop in America, yet the atheists get lumped in with the irrational crazy people. You might see where this would get a bit frustrating.