I fail to see why people with religious deeply held beliefs would get a pass on behaviors that are definitely not allowed for people with non-religious deeply held beliefs.
Maybe American Atheists is courting a new target audience? It would be nice if they were upfront about it, instead of just spreading their newfound faith in magical thinking pretending they are still committed to critical reasoning
If you no longer believe in imaginary friends, heavens dictators and the absurd fables created to milk the fear of death, this is as a perfectly good date to come out.
Christopher Hitchens pointed out that the fatwa against Salman Rushdie was the opening shot in a culture war against freedom. The state of the world seems to agree with him.
The Four Horsemen, a souvenir of a time when reason and science dominated the conversation
I believe Coyne. His respect for the truth and facts (what BuzzFeed ‘journalists’ decry as “rejecting all kinds of faith“), and his ability to keep his own biases in check grant him the credibility to make allegations against Lawrence Krauss regarding sexual misconduct.
They got wrong each and every account of the episodes that I am familiar with, and we’re supposed to believe they got the Krauss story and everything else right? I’m sorry, I can’t do that — they blew up their credibility
What’s the evidence that there is sexism in the atheist community? Is the disproportionately low number of women in the atheist community due to misogyny? Anecdotal evidence is not enough.
For some atheists it is standard practice to just say someone is male and/or white, and/or cis-gendered to have a list of insults ensue and consider that a post. What about their money and support? Is American Atheists taking money from this people?
Before commenting about the atheist rift, or claiming there is sexism/racism within the atheist community, educate yourself about Elevatorgate by reading this factually-accurate satirical epic
KPFA deplatformed Richard Dawkins. This was entirely predictable and, actually, we know very well who has been paving the way for this.
Mehta failed epically to hold accountable three public servants who are hindering the efforts to fight Muslim terrorism, and made up a shitty excuse for their behavior (with no supporting evidence whatsoever), throwing two fellow secularists under the bus in the process
You can’t indoctrinate people into facts. Telling children there are no Smurfs, leprechauns, fairies or gods, is no indoctrination. Is being responsible
Francis conveyed that practicing Catholics are better than non-practicing Catholics. That is demonstrably false:
Treating Islam as a race, instead of as a religion, hinders the efforts to treat all citizens equally under the law, by way of giving Islam a special treatment, that is religious privilege.
Arch-vulture Glenn Greenwald could not miss the opportunity to exploit the death of six Muslims in Quebec and pin it on atheists
The atheist rift is between people who follow Enlightenment principles and those who believe in authoritarian principles
It’s not an attack on Muslim population — the ban only applies to places and circumstances where it is legally required to see the full face of individuals for identification purposes.
Catholic priests, nuns and bishops participated in the genocide in Rwanda, and incited it from their pulpits — they admit it 22 years later.
Besides the newsworthiness of the truth, there are at least three reasons why it is desirable that politicians and journalists begin to admit the relationship between religion and the terrorist acts it inspires: