Of course! 
So, it more something like this:
Which, I think, is obvious, and is what **mswas ** was arguing.
She is also saying that writing, publishing, and distributing books with titles like “The God Delusion” (and with an apparent anti-theistic agenda) is a form of “pushing beliefs”.
To the Dawkins, Dennet, and Hitchens that were mentioned in the OP, others have already mentioned the two best-selling books by Sam Harris. Now there is another one to add to the list by Vic Stenger: God - The Failed Hypothesis.
These books represent that atheism is coming out of the closet in America. About damn time. I’ve been an atheist since about 25 years ago, when in college I realized that I was one. But I’ve mostly kept it to myself and my wife. I wouldn’t lie and tell anyone that I was religious, I would simply stay out of religious conversations.
Just in the last couple of years I’ve become frank about it. I don’t push it on anyone, but I won’t avoid mentioning my views in conversation like I did before.
I think this coming out is a good thing in every way. Christians in the US have simply not been exposed to us in the past - some of our friends were shocked to learn I’m an atheist, apparently thinking that atheists had horns or something. I still don’t dare tell my in-laws though. And I have to lie to the Boy Scouts in order just to be an assistant den leader. The BSA actually teaches my son that you have to have faith in God in order to be “the best kind of person.” These are the kind of folks who need to be exposed to the fact that atheists are all around them. We’re somewhere around 10% of the US population, a much larger group than Jews or Muslims.
These books will encourage more atheists to be more open, and therefore make it more likely that Americans will realize they actually do know several atheists already. That has to be a good thing.
I think so too, but I was confused by her use of “include” (because 2 does include 1).
That’s as I understand mswas’s position. I would say it isn’t pushing beliefs, since the books aren’t being distributed to you; they’re going to shops. If you choose to buy and read those books, then the arguments within aren’t being pushed on you; if anything, you’re pushing them on yourself, a sort of self-proseylatizing. It’s only if those beliefs are brought to you that i’d call it proseylatizing. To go back to my example, me picking up a Bible and reading it isn’t proseylatizing. Someone coming to my door with one probably would be.
Of course, that’s just my own definition of proseylatizing. But i’m meeting you all halfway by using “z” and not “s”. 
Yes, I can see how it could have been confusing.
But, what’s your definition of “proselytizing”? 
Basically, what others call “proselytizing” is often noting more more than a reaction by atheists who have had enough from the arrogance and intolerance of theists.
Let us take one small example. Look at these two You-Tube videos of Paula Zahn on CNN discussing last Januarywhy ahteists are so hated. In the first video, we see actual cases of Americans, persecuted, threatened, taunted thrown out of their homes, etc. for their atheism.
Does any of this strike you as discrimination?
But look at second video! Following the news report Paula Zahn has assembled three people ALL OF THEM THEISTS, to discuss the issue of anti-atheist prejudice and discrimination. NO ATHEIST is present!
Can you imagine for one second a discussion about anti-black prejudice in which only white people participate??? A discussion about anti-semitism in which three gentiles espouse the opinion that Jews “bring it on themselves”?
The so-called discusssion is an extremely offensive session of atheist-bashing in which we are told that atheists believe “nothing” and are “imposing their beliefs on other people.” Not a single atheist there to oppose them.
Can you imagine any other group being treated this way on American TV?
Now in the interests of accuracy, I must admit that after a huge outcry, Paula Zahn DID have the head of the Amereican Ateists and Richard Dawkins on her show. But even then, the head of American Atheists was confronted by a theist who was very agressive and argumentative. You can find that second show on Youtube as well. I believ you can see it if you search “Richard Dawkins”. In the following discussion, the CNN interviewer is essentially asking the atheists what is wrong with them and why they are such whiners.
Funny how an atheist appearance must be balanced by the opposing viewpoint but the Pope or any other religious leader is never “counterbalanced” by an atheist viewpoint.
Yes, and you should check the thread on that story.
What country is it you’re from?
Which would be doubly stupid of him, as I’m already an atheist. Other than that, though, I have no idea what relevance this is supposed to have to what I wrote.
I admit, I haven’t read Dawkins’ books. I know him chiefly through this messageboard, and am reacting to how his arguments have been presented to me by those who support him here. I suppose the gigantic twatism could have been imposed on his arguments through that filter, and not originated at the source.
You admit that?
I just want to say thank you for getting the atheist position right . Sometimes that’s rare.
The test will be what happens when the book runs its course. I suspect that Dennett and Dawkins will go back to their day jobs., and not concentrate on atheism. There are a lot fewer people making a living pushing atheism than pushing religion - by several orders of magnitude, I would think.
I suspect the audience for this book is partly atheists who want support, and partly theists who want to get angry, but mostly doubters who haven’t had an opportunity to read a popular discussion. I’d hope it will make the reasons for their doubts clearer, and perhaps push them over into really considering themselves atheists (whether or not they announce it.)
But I’ll still say that the root cause of this “trend” is the same as trend of books about discussions with cute old people, or fad diets, or stuff like that. If X sells, a publisher wants to publish at least some books just like X.
Just out of sheer curiosity, any examples of posts by “supporters” that you think paint Dawkins in a twatish light? I’ve only been attending to such threads for the past few months, but I have to say that most of the posts by people who have actually read Dawkins’ books consist largely of “Well, that’s not really what Dawkins actually says.”
You’re welcome.
Yes, I agree that there is no comparison of the magnitude, though Atheists from Russia and China did have a bit of a crusade of their own for most of the 21st century, and I am not sure if many Atheists average Marxism too often when drawing their metrics about the level of proselytization. Caveat 1: I know there is nothing intrinsic to atheism that builds group cohesion. Caveat 2: I understand that other religions have histories that were just as violent.
I don’t think so. I think we are seeing the start of a mainstreamization of atheist thought and it is probably encouraging some people to have certain thoughts that they might have kept hidden deep down inside if they’d ever had them before. The possibility of atheism being correct I think is for many people a very bleak and troubling idea, it’s sort of like God dying for them. Even if God is merely an imaginary friend, it is an imaginary friend that looms very large in their minds. It’s part of who they are on a very primal level. This makes any sort of disruption of the sort that challenges their faith in that regard is rather dramatic for them. When you are challenging someone’s faith you are taking on a big responsibility, because for better or worse, you played the part in the outcome, sometimes people’s faith is reinforced, sometimes they lose faith and find they are fine with that, others they lose faith and find that they are not fine with that. I expect it to have a serious sociological effect. Many of the religious associate secularism with atheism.
However, whenever proselytizing with a belief system, you are competing for the souls/minds of the doubters. Here is a great article about [url=http://web.rollins.edu/~tcook/personalpage/landlady.htm]whether or not Spinoza lied to his landlady about religious matters. My personal opinion on this article is in line with #4 on the possible conclusions that the author draws.
“Just as”? Just as?
Jesus wept.
Look, no Templar army ever killed as many people as communists, not even proportionally. Those communists were some of the most ruthless sons of bitches who ever did live. Let’s equivocate and leave it at that, or I will crush you, like a clam on my tummy.
First, I agree that atheist thought is beginning to go minsteam. But the vicious bitch that is organized religion will fight back even more firecely when this happens.
Second, it is likely that what will increase is not only the number of people who ARE atheists but also the number who are willing to apply the label to themselves.
Take for example this site listing the top 50 countries with atheist populations. Note the caveat at the beginning that says:
" Below is a list of the top fifty countries containing the largest measured percentage of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or non-believer in God. These figures do not necessarily represent the number of people who are identify themselves as “atheists.” For example, in Estonia in 2004, 49% of people surveyed said they did not believe in God. At the same time, only 11% of people in the country identified themselves as atheists."
Think about that for a second. Almost half of Estonians say they do not believe in God, but only 11% say they are atheists! What the Hell does that mean? What are the 38% who do not identify as atheists? What are they, theists who do not believe in God??? :confused 
To me, it is a bit like who women preface their remarks with "I am no feminist, but. . . . . . " and then who go on to espouse fully feminist positions. So why are they not willing to call themselves feminists since they clearly are? Because they have heard that word so bad-mothed and denigrated that they believe it means “a screaming, man-hating, ball-busting, fanatical, nose-hair-braiding bitch with unshaven legs and body odour”.
Similarly, God knows (no pun intended) what negative ideas people associate with “atheist”.
With this in mind, look at this fascinating fact about the US: While avowed, declared atheists are usually considered to be only three million or about one per cent of the US population, according to this site there are anywhere from 24 to 27 MILLION Americans who identify themselves under the nebulous title of “non-religious/secular”.
Is it not obvious that there must be at least several million virtual atheists hiding in that 24-27 million?
Sure, some of them may say that they believe in and pray to a God of their own understanding. Fine. I am willing to concede they are deists, not atheists.
But what about the ones who say they are “not atheists” but believe in nothing more than “the power of love in the world”.
So what? Most atheists believe in the power of love. Time to come out of the closet and admit to being an atheist.
My guess is that tghe more we mainstream atheism, the more the US will get rid of this absurd idea that only about 1% of Americans do not beleieve in God.
It’s a good example of how to get the answer you want by phrasing poll questions to solicit a particular response.
Religion should be attacked, called into question, kept on a leash. We have a chance now to evolve to purely secular ethics, so let’s go for it.
Let’s not drag out that old chestnut. Communism is a political religion. It got its holy book, you take down the pictures of Jesus and the saints and put up those of Karl and Uncle Joe, and instead of the church doing no wrong the state does no wrong. And if someone proves the tenets are incorrect, through evidence, you either invent a new explanation or kill him. It didn’t want the church in the way, in the same way Elizabethan England didn’t want Catholics in the way, or all of Europe didn’t want Jews in the way. The Communists killed plenty of people, but not that many because of atheism.
I suspect many people who take the trouble to read the book will have their minds made up already. Atheism wasn’t a bleak or troubling idea for me - in fact, it was very satisfying, since it eliminated lots of guilt. As for the responsibility of challenging faith, I wish the missionaries would have some of that responsibility. No one accepting atheism has to worry about being pressed to attend secret services or hide away forbidden books, the way Christian converts in some Islamic countries do, or the way Catholics in Elizabethan England did. If someone feels comfortable going through the motions of religion for safety, it’s fine with us. It’s not like any god is going to punish you for not being faithful. In any case, teaching evolution might disturb someone also. I’ll go with truth myself.
I’m pretty sure he came out after he was elected.