CJ Werleman published "The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists" Sept. 1

[rug]

Have no fear, the apologists are already on it.


"CJ Werleman’s Shameless, Irresponsible Attempt to Describe 'The New Atheist Threat'”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/09/13/cj-werlemans-shameless-irresponsible-attempt-to-describe-the-new-atheist-threat/


"Why do many atheists hate the New Atheists?"

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/why-do-some-atheists-hate-new-atheists/

[beam me up scottie]

1. Did he plagiarize parts of his new book too?

Beyond belief: The Werleman mess is worse than you can imagine

The Werleman Mess, involving an atheist journalist’s repeated plagiarism in pieces in both Salon and Alternet, seems to have reached its conclusion. I’ll briefly give the upshot, as I’m soon off to walk around Plovdiv.

The Werleman story is not pretty. I think the following is an accurate summary; if there are errors or corrections, please put them in the comments and I’ll deal with them later.

1. On the website Godless Spellchecker, its author detailed about half a dozen instances in which Werleman copied phrases directly from other sources without attribution. This is plagiarism, pure and simple. Many people seem to have thought that plagiarism involves the theft of ideas, not words. It can be both. Facts and ideas, if not your own (or in common currency) should always be referenced. But you don’t need to reference a widely known fact like “Paris is the capital of France.” When you use someone’s words without attribution, however, it is always plagiarism.

...

6. Bizarrely, Werleman then accused Harris of having also engaged in plagiarism. As Harris explained in a post, that accusation was untrue: the “words” Harris lifted from somebody else had actually been written by Harris himself in a piece that appeared two years before the piece from which he supposedly plagiarized.

7. In what is surely the weirdest part of this incident, it appears that Werleman engaged in three instances of sockpuppeting to support himself, using a Twi**er handle “@Women4Atheism,” a later version of an earlier feed called “@ShitMyJesusSays”. Neither of these had anything to do with woman and atheism. Further, Werleman appears to be the creator of a website called “Critical Cranson” (subtitled “One New York girl’s musings”), which was where he/she/it accused Harris of plagiarism. “Critical Cranson” was created on October 20, and has only one post: the incorrect accusation that Sam Harris was guilty of plagiarism. There have been no posts since.

All of this sockpuppeting is described and supported with evidence by a site called “SomewhatMoreCriticalCranson.” It’s fascinating to see the evidence of sockpuppeting accumulating, and the website’s author appears to have done a fair amount of research. It’s the visible record of Werleman’s unravelling.

8. Werleman begins melting down on Twi**er. My theory is that, caught dead to rights, he simply can’t accept his public humiliation, and so lashes out at others in a vain attempt to exculpate himself. Here’s one example:





“Hyper anti-theistic”? Werleman is an atheist, too, and has published stuff that would be seen as “strident” atheism. And what “death cult” is he talking about? If there’s any death cult, it’s jihadist Islam, not Sam Harris’s ideas.


https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/beyond-belief-the-werleman-mess-is-worse-than-you-can-imagine/

Hyper anti-theistic, militaristic, neo-con utopian death cult?


Dangerous secular extremists?


Oh my, where's my fainting couch?

[rug]

2. Hemant and Coyne already covered that today - and not with year old posts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2&v=t-wUe5aEwHM

Keep up, bmus. Not that your apologetics are unappreciated.

[beam me up scottie]

4. Oh good, then you'll enjoy this too:

Disgraced author CJ Werleman threatens blogger with lawsuit over negative book review

I have numerous times vowed to stop writing about CJ Werleman, but then he goes and does something I cannot ignore. But now that he is threatening to sue other bloggers who give him bad reviews or expose his dishonest tactics, here I am.

Having been friends with and supported by Werleman in my early career, writing about his continued unraveling is not an easy task. But I will never sit by silently and watch such nonsense pass by simply because I once respected someone.

Last week Werleman released his new book, The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists, and as Stephen Knight points out in his amazingly thorough review, the book is nothing but a collection of quotes to anti-atheists of which Werleman worships and grovels for their attention.

...

And to top it off, while putting this article together, Werleman has tweeted that new atheists are responding to his book like Islamists did to Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.

I can think of no better example to show how far this man has fallen off the deep end. Not one person has issued a fatwa on Werleman, not one person has put a bounty on his head. He will never need to flee the country for fear of death and will never be escorted around by bodyguards.

Salman Rushdie risked his life exposing the dangers of Islam and sharia. CJ Werleman quoted a dozen opportunistic writers and created a false enemy in the hopes of turning a profit and being accepted into the anti-atheist community.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/09/disgraced-author-cj-werleman-threatens-blogger-with-lawsuit-over-negative-book-review/

[rug]

7. It looks like his targets are squealing on schedule.

It was cute of Coyne to dub him "The Atheist Who Must Not Be Named".

The tribalism on display is rampant.

[AlbertCat]

3. What apologists?

The one's without the crazy scary paranoia titles and bloody-red hand prints on the cover?

[rug]

8. No, the ones running around steering their readers to each others' blogs

so they get the canon straight.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Someone sure is scared those big bad atheists are going to steal their binkie.

OOGA BOOGA DAWKINS!!!

[AlbertCat]

49. This book is written for frightened theists

Werleman is just one of the New Religious Entrepreneurs ...like Kim Davis.

He has religious dupes buying his silly paranoia...with money!

[beam me up scottie]

51. Reminds me of what Ray Comfort wrote about Charles Darwin.

Some bigots will say anything to vilify people who challenge their beliefs.

Werleman has made anti-atheism into a crusade.

He's recruiting soldiers to promote his book and it looks like rug answered the call.

[Rob H.]

79. He simply misspelled "debunkers"

I'm sure it was a legitimate error.

[AlbertCat]

80. He simply misspelled "debunkers"

Must be.

Because I don't see how pointing out the flaws in some paranoid's loopy alarmist tactics and dismantling his scary fantasies is apologizing for anything.

[tkmorris]

5. Gonna put this right next to this other one on my reading list

May as well keep all of my "laugh your way through this crock of happy horseshit" books together in one place.

[rug]

10. Somehow, I don't think they're laughing.

You I don't know about.

[MisterP]

6. dunno, the NAs might be on their arc downward already: Muslims are fighting ISIS, a religious left

is reemerging against the fundies and the old nae-nae-dancing cynically-Culture-War-baiting political system

mostly their "objective ethics" has turned out to be a creature of its decade, like the 60s calls to invade a certain nearby Communist island in the name of baboon trooping behavior: "the brain scans say we should liberate them from their barbarous ways and torture captives" can't convince any more

[rug]

11. The substance of the decline aside, the mechanics of the polenics here is a wonder to behold.

[MisterP]

14. they've been saying "religion has only a decade left" since the 1900s because chemical equations

come out basically the same every time and that any history written after WWI is a filthy postmodernist lie and that Ethical Culture will save us all from war forever for over a century now

[Fumesucker]

19. How long have Christians been predicting the Second Coming?

And the notable series of dramatic events commonly associated with said Coming?

[jakeXT]

20. Happy birthday btw or am I mistaken?

Somehow people get back to religion when they realize they and others are just humans and fallible.

[Fumesucker]

18. With the OP being a pristine example of wondrous polemics

I have in my hand a list of names...

[rug]

44. Oh, he's flailing too.

But I always root for the underdog in these kind of fights.

[AlbertCat]

50. But I always root for the underdog

Like those who fall for this paranoid baloney?

[rug]

60. No, more like those sibjected to intermet swarming based primarily on personal attack.

As this thread amply demonstrates.

[AlbertCat]

64. Who are you?

And is "sibjected" a typo from hysteria?

[rug]

68. It is indeed a typo.

Better than incoherence.

[edhopper]

12. So you like this guy

and defend him?
Or you just can't keep yourself from challenging any post by any atheist with snarky nonsense?

Can't tell which.

[beam me up scottie]

13. Werleman is a liar and a despicable bigot.

One has to wonder what kind of person would shill for them here.

Oh, right, I forgot.

The same kind of person who calls people who criticize the RCC's misogynistic, homophobic policies "bigots".

[Rob H.]

16. Werleman isn't just a plagiarist and a bigot...

From the article:

***Update***: Werleman has threatened legal action against Knight for pointing out that the site TwitterAudit says about 45% of Werleman’s Twitter followers are fake and exposing possible shenanigans designed to boost ratings for his books on Amazon.

Edit: emphasis added

[beam me up scottie]

17. I don't know if rug follows him on twitter but it wouldn't surprise me.

As much as he's posted about Werleman he's obviously a big fan of the guy.

No, the ones running around steering their readers to each others' blogs.

Irony!

[Rob H.]

15. It can be two things nt

[edhopper]

59. It appears that is the case.

[Curmudgeoness]

21. You guessed right. nt

[rug]

33. He makes some very good points, most of which are provern by the mob reaction to his book.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Oh please, the reaction is to HIM, and his biases.

Has little to do with the book. The only relevance of the book is you using it as an excuse to post that asshole's words here.

[rug]

41. Refreshing of you to admit the torches are all fueled by ad hominems.

I see you spared some to post an ad hominem about me. That, however, is stale.

Is it only "that asshole's words" you object to being posted here or are you taking additional suggestions?

[AtheistCrusader]

48. I just see you, peddling the words of a bigot as if it has any meaning beyond that of a personal

opinion held by the bigot himself. (the author.)

I'm always open to suggestions. Don't feel bad if I object on the merits, however.

[rug]

61. Oh, calling out assholes is bigotry now?

:et alone daring to write a book about it.

Oh wait, you must think they are beyond criticism. Anyone who says otherwise must be a bigot. Isn't that how it goes?

[AtheistCrusader]

69. No, Werleman is a bigot. Per his tweets.

In his own words. On a wide variety of not-even-religious issues.

[rug]

70. You really don't want to measre bigotry by the tweets of famous atheists.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. We've been down this road. Got some new material to share?

I thought not.

[rug]

73. If you insist, I'll post it as I come upon it.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. By all means.

As we don't have an atheist pope or whatever, I don't have a problem discussing bad behavior or speech by assholes that I don't want to associate with, even if they share my non-belief. Even if they have made some noteworthy contribution to the concept of non-belief. That contribution stands or falls on it's own. Anything else is an appeal to authority.

[AlbertCat]

52. Can't tell which.

It's a game I call...

"get the last post in"

His fave!

[tkmorris]

22. Your pal Werleman seems SUCH a charming fellow!

http://www.gspellchecker.com/2015/06/cj-werlemans-racist-anti-muslim-bigotry-exposed/

This guy is a colossal tool, what do you think you accomplish by posting his drivel here?

[rug]

34. Seems he was on their bandwagon five or six years ago.

Oh, wait, elevatorgate and Dawkins' "Dear Muslima" letter was more recent.

Amazing how appalled one can become after keeping one's eyes open for five years.

[Starboard Tack]

23. Oh boy, now you've done it.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Cited a bigot and an asshole, despite those attributes just because he has a common enemy?

When you'll quote ANYONE just to attack Sam Harris, the agenda kinda shows, you know?

[Starboard Tack]

25. Sounds like a contest for bigots.

Tough finding leaders isn't it?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. What the hell do I need a leader for?

This ain't fly fishing.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Hopefully you don't.

At least when it comes to matters of personal belief. Unfortunately, many feel the need to be led.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. You mean, matters of unbelief.

Do people need an un-leader for un-beliefs?

[Starboard Tack]

42. Absolutely not.

Though some non believers see themselves as leaders. Almost like they are leading a crusade. (I'm only teasing. Don't take it to heart, seriously).
Amazing how when we finally get a grip on the science and logic, so many still want to be either leaders or followers, in terms of what we should or should not believe. What interesting creatures we are, in our constant quest to justify our own existence.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Some of us are trying to protect our existence.

and the autonomy thereof.

Hence, the hospital thread.

[AlbertCat]

53. Unfortunately, many feel the need to be led.

So they turn to Popes and Imams and Preachers.

It is unfortunate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Did you just call rug a bigot, for starting this thread?

You appear to be trying to stir things up for shits and giggles.

[Starboard Tack]

30. Hi Muriel

No, I didn't. I don't think rug is a bigot. I think Werleman and Harris are both bigots. Unfortunately, they also happen to be atheists, but we never did claim the moral ground, did we? Which is just as well.

[beam me up scottie]

55. Atheist bigots like people who compare same sex marriage to marrying bicycles and animals?

Starboard Tack (10,698 posts)
112. And this has what to do with the RCC?

Why would any couple want to marry in a church that doesn't accept them? Makes no sense.
You really look for extreme situations to provide fodder for your hatred of religion. How about if I wanted to marry my bicycle, or my hamster and some church opposed performing the ceremony, would you be there, fighting for my rights?

I'm sorry, but religious rights and gay rights are not the same thing. I support both. Seems like you only support one. I know many gay couples, some who married in church and some at town hall and some couldn't care less about the institution of marriage.

I think your views are self centered. You want the world to adapt to your values, like the vegan who wants everyone to quit eating meat. What a boring world that would be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123723

Starboard Tack This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide

176. Really? And how exactly did I do that?

You seem to confuse marriage and sexuality. The first is about a ceremonial binding of two entities. The second is about sex.
Who are you to tell me I cannot marry my dog, or my brother, or my mother, or my fucking bicycle, if I so wish. You don't get to decide these things. Sorry to disappoint you.

A Jury voted 5-2 to hide this post on Fri Apr 18, 2014, 05:12 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124676

Starboard Tack (10,698 posts)
177. No, I am not equating it with anything.

We should all have the right to marry whomever or whatever, provided it is consensual and conducted of sound mind.
Do you have a problem with sisters marrying each other? I don't. How about other family members? Do you draw lines and, if so, why?

My point, as I'm sure you are already aware, was about seeking approval from the RCC or any other church, to get married. That approval comes from within one's own conscience. Official approval comes from the state. Fuck the church and fuck those who want to paint me as an enemy of equal rights. Fuck the bigots and bullies and nasty hate mongering anti-theists. Fuck all fascists.

Happy Easter!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124679

I bolded that last part to highlight the hypocrisy of calling the people who were intelligent and righteous enough to criticize your homophobic statements "bigots" and the gall to attack them for doing so.

[rug]

62. Ah, there it is, right on cue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=212266

How far you've traveled from the subject of the thread. In any event, you're making his case for him.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. No, rug was trying to stir things up for shits and giggles.

'Tee hee hee, look I found an atheist that has a problem with Sam Harris for being too strident of an atheist! better post it!'

Nevermind that the person he is citing is a racist and a bigot, but overlooked that EVEN THOUGH THAT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BEFORE because it has the win-win of attacking Harris, AND even if discredited, well, he's still an 'atheist' himself, and no matter what, he's managed to smear shit on the word 'atheist'.

[rug]

39. You must be confusing me with one of your compadres.

Besides, I posted a book cover, not a cartoon.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Yup.

[rug]

38. No, he didn't.

But I am waiting for someone to call him a bigot. Seems it happens every time, no matter how unwarranted.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. struggle4progress may be the one you're waiting for

They're very keen to call DUers bigots without reason: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218211938#post13

[rug]

35. They're doing it to themselves.

[Humanist_Activist]

31. I'm sorry, from the title alone I view this book to be as credible as "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah...

Goldberg.

[rug]

40. Never judge a book by its cover.

[Starboard Tack]

47. B-but, isn't that what covers are for?

To spare us from reading, especially when we could see the movie instead, or just blindly stumble along, clinging to our misconceptions.

[rug]

63. Knee jerk reactions serve the same purpose.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. The cover of Asimov's 'Foundation' led me to pick up an join a great story when I was 7.

Probably wouldn't have gotten my attention with just the words 'Foundation - Asimov' on the spine. Great big fuck-off spaceships lining up to bombard a planet was a great tease.

[AlbertCat]

54. Never judge a book by its cover.

Except when you already know the author is ridiculous.


Like I said elsewhere....


This book is for theists...scared poor poor put upon theist.

Werleman is just a New Religious Entrepreneur .... like Kim Davis. Milking whoever gets caught in their sticky mess. Laughing all the way to the bank.

[rug]

65. Ah, "the author is ridiculous."

Allrighty then.

[Lordquinton]

58. Can't judge it by the cover

Can't judge it by the author, can't judge it by its content, can't judge it on it's reviews...

What conditions are we allowed to judge this book on?

[Humanist_Activist]

81. Why not? I find the title to be, how shall we say, extremely exaggerated...

if he's trying to be hyperbolic, he succeeded, and who knows the title could be(and hopefully is) an extreme exaggeration and the actual content of his book is not nearly as shrill or is the opposite of what is suggested in the title. But the title certainly isn't going to help me think he has opinions worth holding.

[Lordquinton]

56. I think Trajan is the smartest one in this thread

Those of us who are about to die, we salute you!

[beam me up scottie]

57. Agreed!

They deserve a medal and should come back to the clubhouse for drinks on me!

Trajan ---

[rug]

67. #4 is already there waiting.

[AlbertCat]

75. I can think of at least five who are much smarter.

If altering on such a post like a toddler having a hissy fit is "smart".

[rug]

76. "altering on such a post" Why Albert, is that a typo?

[AlbertCat]

77. Why Albert, is that a typo?

A spellcheck correction.... that is at least a real word.


Why don't you alert on it.

[Lordquinton]

78. I only saw two