If you ask me, Shalini, the self-described "pro-Dawkins evangelical atheist," is becoming increasingly confused. In response to "Don't Call Me Miltant!!," Shalini has this to say:
Over at Telic Thoughts, MikeGene is apparently up in arms over my anti-appeaser post.
This is a classic example of projection.
Shalini is obviously the one "up in arms," as she lashes out at the "appeasers," "cowards," and "spineless pushovers" who won't do what they are supposed to do in the war (don't forget she is complaining about other atheists). All I did was showcase some of her rhetoric on a lazy Sunday, as it is somewhat amusing, at least to me, to see someone aggresively complaining about the "cowards" while also complaining that others perceive this type of posturing as militancy.
As much as I love basking in the love hate of those morons, I had to laugh when the I saw how alike the ID-iots and the appeasers are.
Dawkins has clearly inspired a lot of name-calling among his fans. All of this is part of the intimidation strategy among the New Atheists, where militants seek to bully their opponents into silence with belligerent rhetoric, nasty accusations, name-calling, and ridicule. But that's not the significant fact. Note here that Shalini lumps the "ID-iots" with the "appeasers." When you see yourself as being in a war against all religious people, and then go on to accuse many non-religious people of being cowards and appeasers for not adopting the war strategy, this makes you an extremist.
Yup, you've guessed it. I am described (for what seems like the billionth time) as a 'fundamentalist, militant atheist'. Are the ID-iots and their appeaser bedfellows really that out of ideas?
Isn't it odd how some people can so effortlessly call other people "IDiots," "morons," "cowards," "spineless pushovers," and "appeasers," yet seem so awfully thin-skinned when others liken this name-calling to militancy or fundamentalism?
Some of the the questions I have always posed to ID-iots are: How do their rants against atheism (or their beloved term 'New Atheism') benefit ID?
First, a clarification. The dictionary defines rant as follows:
"to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way"
Now, this is not a rant.
This is what a rant looks like.
Second, as far as the term "New Atheist" goes, it's not mine, as I did not invent it. While some may opt for the distinction between atheist and appeaser, I prefer atheist and New Atheist.
Third, let's answer the question. Chuckling at the rants of militant atheists or critiquing the extremism of Richard Dawkins does not "benefit" ID. I agree, as I never claimed it did.
Furthermore, if ID isn't religious in nature, why bother with those rants (which make up most of their UD and TT posts) in the first place?
Clearly, as any TT reader knows, such "rants" do not make up most of the TT posts. Shalini is just peddling stereotypes. So why bother? I'm intrigued with the manner in which Dawkins seems to inspire his fans. While we hear all this talk about being "pro-reason" and "pro-science" on the internet, he seems to better inspire a form of belligerent bullying.