I think this is worth discussing in this group.

[Starboard Tack]

Although it is meant as somewhat of a putdown of atheists who show tolerance toward people of faith, it raises some excellent questions.

[blockquote
Why are faitheists so nasty?

What has struck me over the past few weeks is the anger with which certain writers (I won’t name names, but there are more than one) excoriate the New Atheists—even if those critics are atheists themselves! (I call atheists sympathetic to religion “faitheists.”) One thing I do recognize is that the vitriol is stronger when someone used to be religious or was raised in a religious home. That’s one clue to what’s going on.

But given that New Atheists aren’t nearly as strident, arrogant, or dogmatic as are some believers, the degree of criticism simply seems disproportionate to what people like Dawkins, Harris, or I actually have to say. For our criticism of religion basically comes down to this: “Your confidence in a proposition should be proportional to the strength of the evidence supporting it.” Is that really something that should inspire such nastiness? And it’s not just a criticism of religion, but a criticism of faith in general, including pseudosciences like ESP and “alternative medicine.”
...more at link...
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/why-are-faitheists-so-nasty/


I would like to see some links to those Coyne refuses to name, who are apparently excoriating New Atheists.
Maybe some are angry and maybe some did grow up in religious homes. I think that applies to a lot of people. Most of the atheists I know didn't get heavy doses of religion as kids, but from what I read on this board and in A&A, many atheists did have oppressively religious childhoods.
He refers to those who criticize Dawkins and Harris as "Faitheists", omitting to point out that the criticism of those two is not because they are New Atheists, nor is it because of their opposition to religion, but because of bigoted remarks which they have made toward people of faith. I am not a "Faitheist". My sympathy is not directed toward religion, but toward human beings, regardless of their faith.

I think it is OK to challenge any belief that someone professes. I do not think it is OK to insult people, purely because of their beliefs, or their imagined or presumed beliefs. Too many seem to be offended by the beliefs of others.

[msongs]

1. "your" beliefs are ok with me as long as I don't have to live according to them, as in...

practice them only in your own lives, not mine

[Starboard Tack]

8. +1 Respect!

[gtar100]

2. +1 well stated! Insulting someone's belief system without regard to context is nothing more than

bullying. I've thrown more than my fair share of insults at Christianity and Islam, but I think it's just meanness of heart to insult anyone just because they are believers in those religions. Context really matters. And the mere mention of a particular religion isn't an open invitation for attack.

[CoffeeCat]

3. I think it is wrong to insult people just for their beliefs...HOWEVER...

This is a very complex, multifaceted issue. There are so many issues here.

I live in a pretty conservative suburb with high numbers of religious people. I have many friends who are religious, and although I don't agree with their views, we are friends and I love them. We find common ground elsewhere, and I have other "skeptical" friends who provide stimulating conversation in those realms.

With that said--YES, there are kind religious people. However, the problem is that there is a blossoming carousel of religious crazy, mean-spiritedness, and extremism that seems to be taking over religion. Religion has become politicized and used as a political tool--mainly by Republicans. They wrap the most heinous political stances in religious garb and sell it to those in the pews. For example--climate-science denial or the recent hate and vitriol for these innocent immigrant children.

One cannot help but be disgusted by these ignorant and downright sick views. It's also easy to view these people as foolish hypocrites.

And of course--many religious people HATE atheists and agnostics, positioning non-believers or skeptics as tools of the devil. Fox News constantly convinces religious extremists that people are out to get them, and that they are part of a persecuted class. It's not a mistake that a fear-based movie "Persecuted" is currently in theaters. This is a deliberate ploy, by Fox News, to create paranoia and hate for people who do not share their extremist views.

I mean really...someone is surprised that this kind of "religion" breeds a chasm?

I am also blown away by the pure stupidity. Hop on my Facebook feed and you'll see one of my neighbors suggesting that she is "so blessed" because yesterday her pool pump was broken, but today it's working and "Jesus just knew how important that working pool pump was to me." So, the kids dying of Ebola aren't as blessed apparently. God was busy, using his Son to heal a pool pump. I see comments about breast-cancer survivors who thank God for blessing them with a cure. Meanwhile, those with terminal cancer, I guess--are just screwed in the eyes of the Lord. What about when a child dies, "The Lord wanted an angel by his side." I am not angry at these people. I feel sorry for them.

People all over the Internet use religion and The Bible to justify hating our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. They openly call for stoning them and accuse them of destroying the family unit. And anyone is surprised that this mentality creates a bit of angst for those who believe that gay rights equals civil rights? Come on. These people who decry homosexuals, ignore the parts of the Bible that celebrate slavery and declare that wearing mixed fibers is a mortal sin. They suspend reality. It does not make sense. All of this is a shitfest of stupidity.

Again, I feel sorry for these people. I feel sorry for our world--that our species is in its infancy--believing in talking snakes, virgins awaiting you after death and a big boat with two of every animal in which the velociraptors never ate the chickens or the panthers. Seriously.

And we wonder why some people don't understand climate science, evolution or that teachers are not horrible, lazy people. A contingent of our population listens to Fox News, soaks in hours of hate radio and they believe anything these lying snake-oil salesmen tell them. Many of these right wingers are religious. Very religious.

Much, but not all, of religion has gone feral. That is the reason for the consternation, the dismay and the outrage. It's not about hating someone for their beliefs, it's about all of the political nonsense and hypocrisy that is oozing out of it now.

It would be bizarre not to question this religious extremism.

[Starboard Tack]

9. Let the haters hate, be they religious or not.

But don't join them by hating back. If their hatred translates into actions then we have a problem.
All we can do is show by example, that we are decent people, regardless of our beliefs, or lack of beliefs.

When they get in my face, I find that a nice smile and a "Have a nice day!" usually does the trick. If not, then I might add a "Bless you!" with a wink.

[Htom Sirveaux]

4. What if the atheists in question don't want the name "faitheist"?

Are their wishes to be respected, or is it ok to impose labels on others in accord with what you think those labels mean, regardless of what the target(s) of those labels think?

[Starboard Tack]

5. I didn't label anyone. The writer, Jerry Coine did that.

I agree with you.

[Htom Sirveaux]

6. I know you didn't. Sorry for not being clearer.

Also, I think Coyne doesn't even consider the possibility that any of the criticism at all might be justified. As long as atheists aren't as bad as believers, that is what counts. These critics just get a new label and a summary dismissal based on internet psychoanalysis. Since Coyne doesn't tell us which critics he is discussing, we have no basis for knowing whether they agree with the Terry Pratchett statement he highlights. Neither do we have any basis for knowing whether these critics actually agree with Coyne's summary of his message, and just take issue with the way it is conveyed or with other statements entirely.

[Starboard Tack]

7. No problem.

Coyne is a disappointment here. His scientific credentials are excellent and I've seen nothing else of his that I disagree with, but he seems to have it ass backwards on his call-out of those atheist who are criticizing Dawkins and Harris. We don't criticize them for being atheists, but for their bigoted remarks.

I don't like or dislike people for their beliefs, but for how they treat others, especially those they disagree with.

[rug]

18. Coyne is being disingenuous here.

The question is not at all "Why are faitheists so nasty?"

Stedman early on addressed the term and its use.

You may be asking yourself: What on earth is a ‘faitheist’?

It’s been years since I first heard the term “faitheist”—a pejorative used by some atheists to describe other nontheists who seem too accommodating of religion. As an atheist and an interfaith activist, I decided that I liked the word enough to embrace it. I used the word as the title for my first book, a memoir calling for conversation and cooperation between atheists and people of faith.

In reclaiming the word, I understand it to mean that I am an atheist in pursuit of common ground with the religious. That, as a naturalist and nontheist, I place my “faith” in humanity—in the idea that religious believers and atheists can overcome the false dichotomies that separate us, focus on areas of agreement, and work together to build a better world. I’m happy to say that this kind of conversation—one centered on shared values rather than solely on divisions—appears to be gaining traction.

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2013/12/04/10-things-expect-faitheist-column/#sthash.R0vQ1dtr.dpuf

[Htom Sirveaux]

19. I especially like these two:

3. Challenge manifestations of anti-atheist bias, stigma, or ignorance. Though atheists are becoming more visible, that does not mean that anti-atheist bias has disappeared. I’m increasingly passionate about addressing this ill, and I will continue to seek to expose it in both its explicit and subtle manifestations. (For an example of what this conversation might look like, here’s a recent discussion I participated in about it on CNN’s “Faces of Faith.”) I will also challenge expressions of bias or prejudice toward other religious minorities, including Muslims and Sikhs.

4. Challenge the idea that atheism is necessarily anti-religion. Sometimes atheists can be our own worst enemy. I frequently see atheist activism or commentary on religion that is either ill-informed or simply inaccurate. Worse still, clumsy atheist activism sometimes fuels hatred toward religious minorities or contributes to the spread of misinformation and ignorance. Religion is not a monolith—and when some other atheists treat it as such, or adopt a shallow and overbroad approach, I will not be shy about expressing my concerns. I’ve been critical of what I consider problematic activism in the name of atheism and I will continue to do so here. I will also seek to build bridges of understanding and respect between atheists and theists.

He wants to be a strong advocate for his group, but doesn't define strength as being as hostile as possible towards religion. Right on.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Perfect!

[cbayer]

27. Exactly. First of all, Coyne acts as if he has invented and defined the term.

He clearly stole it from Stedman.

Secondiy, he is cowardly for not identifying who he is aiming this at. Why? Probably because he knows it is an indefensible accusation when the sunlight is shown on it.

Thirdly, he places himself in the ranks of other legitimate scientists who somehow fancy themselves sociologist and psychologists, despite having zero credentials to make any such claims. That is exactly where he belongs.

[intaglio]

10. It actually comes in a really poorly written blog post

In it he accuses "faitheists" of wanting God to exist. The problem is that mostly the excoriation is because of views outside atheism and because of the strident insensitivity evidenced by those persons in unaltered New Atheism. The problem he faces is that the criticism he and those he advocate for are roundly criticised by people who are not remotely accomodationist - the more proper term for "faitheist"

Three examples from P Z Myers

P Z Myers on Jerry Coyne - with whom he generally agrees

I have to disagree with Jerry Coyne
Regarding a lecturer teaching a Creationist biology course, Coyne believing that legal action is appropriate
/snip
... academic freedom is the issue here, and professors have to have the right to teach unpopular, controversial issues, even from an ignorant perspective. The first amendment does not apply; this is not a course students are required to take, and it’s at a university, which students are not required to attend. It’s completely different from a public primary or secondary school. A bad course is an ethical problem, not a legal one. It’s also an issue that the university has to handle internally.

Myers on Dawkins

I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, please stop
I've strained to pardon Richard Dawkins’ many insensitivities — ‘dear muslima’, the missteps on twitter, the petty snits against other people — but his latest is just a disaster.

Myers on Sam Harris

Oh, gosh — I have cheesed off Sam Harris!
He is clearly quite peeved. It looks like the final straw was that I, as he claims, “gleefully endorsed” a post on The 5 Most Awful Atheists. Actually, what I did was challenge the author to write something positive about atheists, and agreed that the criticisms were valid, but not gleefully, and I also said that I do not consider any of those atheists irredeemable (except, of course, SE Cupp).

And I’ll stand by that.

[Htom Sirveaux]

11. Kudos to you, and to PZ Myers!

Very well said!

[Starboard Tack]

14. Right on the money, intaglio

as is Myers.

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. The same PZ Myers who drove a nail through a consecrated communion wafer?

Myers is an anti-theist. His criticisms of Coyne, Dawkins, and Harris have absolutely nothing to do with insensitivity towards religion. He criticized Dawkins for making light of pedophilia, Harris for throwing his lot behind racial profiling and torture, and Coyne for a faulty interpretation of the First Amendment.

Furthermore, Myers has himself criticized the "fatheist" crowd:

The Diversity of Diversity

It seems to me that using this conceptual model of diversity – the Diversity Smorgasbord vs. the Diverse Problem-Solving Group – has helped me clarify my thoughts somewhat and perhaps aided my understanding of the automatic hostility often directed towards atheists from people who don’t seem to fall into the usual You-Need-God-to-Be-Good crowd. The diverse diversities might even help explain some of the reasoning behind the anti-gnu atheists, the faitheists and accomodationists who would never, ever be so rude as to try to change another person’s religious beliefs. They’re letting the religious set the framework. They’re buying into the equivocation. And then they’re being reasonable, fair, tolerant, accepting, and good. They’re not judgmental.

No Power in the 'Verse Can Stop Us

I just think I’m right.

That’s important. Atheists should have a feeling of unrepentant confidence — we are on the right side of reason, the right side of history, and the right side of the evidence. It’s not because I think I have some intrinsically greater worth than others at all, but I have shed some delusions and freed myself of traditional dogma, and have also worked most of my life to alleviate my ignorance. Other people could benefit from similar enlightenment.

And anyone who’s bothered by my cockiness should have a little more self-awareness: we all think we’re right, or we wouldn’t be doing what we do.

...

Yeah, the faitheists and believers think I’m a bad guy, for the reasons above (and I’m OK with that). My other sin, though, is that I encourage other atheists to join me, I reinforce my kind of rudeness in a large group of people, and I do that community building stuff. I foster my tribe. We grow stronger and louder and bolder, we are all bad guys together.

[intaglio]

16. Yeah, the guy who put a nail through a cracker, so what?

Yes, Prof. Myers is antitheist and so am I, so what?

Yes, he has criticised accommodationists. In the first instance because they refuse to explain and attract people to an atheist outlook and seeming to regard religion like the Curates Egg - "Good, in parts," (I use the phrase in it's original sense). In the second he is actually counter attacking criticism he had received from the accomodationists.

My point was that Jerry Coyne is making moan about such criticism is ignoring that the source of much of that criticism lies in the inability of unreconstructed New Atheists to see flaws in their own ethics. To that end I quoted the unrepentant Prof. Myers.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say

Myers' criticisms of Dawkins, Harris, and Coyne are all related to very specific commentaries apart from the realm of atheism. They were speaking on matters well beyond their respective areas of expertise, and were rightfully slapped around for it.

But I don't take it from Coyne's article that he's talking about atheists like PZ, or criticisms like those PZ brought against him. It sounds to me like he's referring to the Salon-league atheists whose formulaic "I'm an atheist but..." articles complain only of "tone" and tend to call for a more respectful dialogue between atheists and believers.

I do apologize if I've missed your point completely. Chalk it up to lack of sleep.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Have you tried a mirror?

[Starboard Tack]

13. Bless you, Warren!

[rug]

17. As usual, one who has the wrong datum, reaches the wrong conclusion.

But given that New Atheists aren’t nearly as strident, arrogant, or dogmatic as are some believers,

[hrmjustin]

20. Lol ain't that the truth.

[okasha]

21. Truth.

I definitely had the wrong datum.

I thought that statement was intended to be ironic.

[Brettongarcia]

22. Ever hear the religious phrase, "Kill the infidels"?

[okasha]

23. "Accomodationist" strikes me as about

a tenth of a degree off "collaborator," with all the negative connotation that carries. One of the things I find unattractive about the so-called New Atheism is its very old demand for unwavering conformity. I find it equally unattractive in doctrinaire religion, or doctrinaire politics, or doctrinaire art theory, for that matter.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Because religious people are constantly meddling in and attacking my civil rights.

"Why are faitheists so nasty?"

Because I'm tired of them trying to micromanage my lifestyle according to their beliefs.

Edit: I read 'fatheists' as some sort of smear against 'strong' atheists like myself. Re-reading a couple parts, it seems like I did not correctly grok the point of the article.