Collaboration with theists?

[Secularone]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...religion/1

The article makes some strong points, and I found it quite pertinent. It is what I have been saying for some time, something I am sure I have said here before. That the bottom line is freedom of thought, and that "dogmatic" or "militant" atheists are crossing one of those very important lines by acting like the mentioned convention. To demand that others see the world as you do is the hallmark of fundamentalism. It is what turned many of us off of mainstream religion. That the article states that there was no mention of "Collaboration, compromise or shared ethical commitments" between our groups is telling.

It feels like some of these more hard line dogmatic atheists have been given a modern world that finally gives them freedom of choice, and so they step up to the plate and try to deny others the same freedom. I am sure some of you will say that atheism is based on "the facts", but I see no difference between fanatics on both sides. As I know I have said before, the problem is not belief or disbelief, it is fanaticism.

Pippy, your statements here betray the fact that you had your mind made up even before you read the article. But worse still, it gave you reason to reinforce your bias without further investigation.

I suspect you've never been to an Atheist Alliance convention. I have been to several and was a member of AAI for several years. In fact, I served on the Board as Recording Secretary. So, I think I know something about AAI and their conventions.

They are not as Pinn claims. While it is true there is no affection for religion expressed there, there is definitely a bias against aggressive atheism. In fact, many of their leaders are on record taking a stand against what they call "negative atheism." That would be any form of aggressive evangelism on the part of atheists that would give atheists a bad reputation.

Well, the fact that I protest Christian fascism in front of churches and on the streets with my signs makes me a "bad" atheist in their opinion. I don't agree.

This stand is the very reason AAI and I had a parting of ways. I resigned my membership in disgust of their so-called "positive atheism" stance that in my opinion amounts to essentially vilifying anyone who dares attack religion in an aggressive fashion in favor of their tactic which is to essentially doing nothing but go to conventions, ridicule religion among themselves and pat each other on the back.

Of the 120 or so atheists that attend their convention, I know of no one who would dare confront religious nuts on their own turf as I do. Of course, Pinn would know nothing of this and neither would you.

But the truth is I and a very small handful of atheist activists are the only ones aggressive in our confrontation of religion, probably in the whole damn world. And none of us have the agenda, or the arrogance to meet the negative criteria described by you and Pinn.

Our activism is solely a legitimate educational exercise. And while Pinn and Fundamentalists may not like what we do, it is unscrupulous of them to spread lies in an attempt to vilify us.

You want to call me a fanatic. Fine. I think I am one. That's fair. But not the other things you attribute to atheist fanatics. Those are lies.

Pinn doesn't understand AAI or atheism and neither do you.

AAI doesn't understand me and neither do you. They are more concerned about their image than anything else. (Their efforts have been for naught, (with people like Pinn spreading lies about them.) That is basically what I tried to tell them. No matter what they do, religious nuts will lie about them in an attempt to disenfranchise them. And of course, I'm right, as Pinn proves.

My objective is not to destroy religion, but rather to change it into something positive.

In fact, I am a member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation. They have no dogma. But they cherish seven principles. You should check them out.

Again, I ask you what I or any other atheist has done that denies you the freedom to believe as you wish? You answer with vague answers that amount to an indictment without specifics. Come clean with the specifics and let's examine our behavior to see if you have a case against us.

You won't come clean with specifics, simply because you don't have any. We have done nothing to deserve your criticism. You just can't muster the integrity to admit that.

And again, I am not convinced that you are in any way objective in your position with respect to atheism. You even admitted that Pinn's article only confirmed your previously held opinion. What specifically caused you to arrive at such conclusions?