Category Archives: atheist-bashing

The New Statesman interviews Dawkins, concentrates on his tweets instead of his books

Although this New Statesman piece (click on screenshot) purports to be an interview of Richard Dawkins by George Eaton, it’s not really a series of questions and answers, but rather an indictment of Dawkins’s propensity to issue invidious or misconstrued tweets. (Of the 16 short paragraphs, seven are about his tweets.) In other words, it’s […]

Articles you don’t need to read because you’ve already read them: New Atheism-dissing in the Guardian

Good Lord, when will places like the Guardian stop publishing the same article over and over again? Do people ever get tired of dumping on New Atheism or, in this case, the “Four Horsemen”? I haven’t heard of author Steven Poole, a British journalist and author, but here he reviews a book I’ve already read, […]

Another religionist emails me, accusing me of reading only my own writings

The emails—most either annoying or downright pompous, keep coming in, inspired by my piece at The Conversation on the incompatibility of science and faith. With over 100,000 views and over 750 comments, that piece has legs—legs that have apparently kicked some believers in the tuchas. The email below, both annoying and pompous, came from a gentleman (and I use […]

More emails from readers who question my philosophical cred

Emails from strangers about my science-versus-religion piece in The Conversation continue to pollute my inbox. I’ve put one more below. How much do you have to study religion before you can say that Abrahamic religions are a.) often based on assertions about what exists and what is real and b.) adjudicate their truth statements in […]

NBC News propagates the Jesus myth

Just a note about how the news treats religious superstition. My regular evening newscast on NBC was reporting the Christmas festivities around the world (celebrations in Israel, the Queen’s Jesus message, and the Pope’s annual homily), when it described the festivities in Bethlehem as being “in the birthplace of Jesus.” Not the “traditional birthplace of Jesus”, […]

“Scholars” explain religion to me

Yesterday I got three longish emails taking issue with my piece on The Conversation in which I argued that science and religion are incompatible. Two of them were incoherent and don’t deserve reproducing here, much less mentioning. The one below, however, came from a person who said he was a scholar of religion, and I […]

I get emails from theists

Since my piece on the incompatibility of science and religion was published yesterday at The Conversation, I’ve been bombarded with emails and “requests for interaction” (The Conversation allows readers to contact you this way), with the latter being largely “requests for you to listen to my point of view.” Here’s an email from someone who found […]

Andrew Sullivan responds to me and others about his faith

Andrew Sullivan’s latest “The Intelligencer” column in New York Magazine has three subjects: Theresa May, gay jokes (he’s for them), and why atheism, like his Catholicism, is a religion. On December 9, I wrote a critique of Sullivan’s original column about atheism (“America’s new religions“), as well as giving him praise for recognizing the similarity […]

Andrew Sullivan: the bad (atheism-bashing and religion-osculation) and the good (seeing American ideologies as religions)

Several people sent me links to Andrew Sullivan’s latest column in New York magazine (click on screenshot below). The curious thing is that half the senders thought the article was great while the other half despised it.  After reading it (it’s long, but read it anyway), I can see why. His opening attacks on atheism […]

The New Yorker once again slams New Atheism

About two weeks ago I dissected an interview at Vox in which Sean Illing talked to John Gray about Gray’s new book, Fifty Shades Seven Types of Atheism, and both interviewer and interviewee embraced each other in their hatred of New Atheism. Their mutual beefs (both are atheists but are “atheist-butters”) include these four: 1.) […]