There is a great discussion currently in the atheist community between "New Atheism" and whatever that is not, presumably "Classic Atheism".
The general feeling is that Atheists and Humanists have been on the defensive for years and are now able, equipped, and positioned to start taking the fight to the theists.
To many humanists such an action seems unneeded. We, as the rational ones, should not lower ourselves to the level of bitter confrontational dialectic.
Others think it is about time that we stood up to be counted.
Any Humanist that has sat through a Christian sermon about the hateful demeaning nature of mankind, and the all encompassing greatness of God, and his wonderful blood sacrifice, can perhaps see this.
It is easy and heartfelt to fight back against the aspersions christians and others cast against the Humanist movement.
The question is, when does an attack help our cause, and when are we merely stooping to the lowest game on the block.
Is it better for us to continue to persuade, or to go on the offensive against the theists and the cringe worthy actions and activities of the religion industry?
Should we continue to gain ground by example, or aggressively attack the things we see as wrong?
Many of my sentences above are loaded. I don't mean them to be.
I am open on this debate, as on the need to proselytize.
What do you think?

First of all, I think we need to continue educating current non-believers as to the tremendously high stakes in this struggle against the those who would re-write our Constitution and force the teaching of creationist nonsense in our schools. A lot of times when I talk about these things, I'm met with blank stares or even hostility by those who think these "threats" are merely overblown myths fostered by organizations looking for donations to fight nonexistent bogymen.

The intentions of the religious right are well documented and available to all in all sorts of media. I'm not concerned with debating the existence of god, I'm concerned about teaching good science in our public schools! I don't give a damn if jesus existed or not, I don't want the First Amendment watered down by court-stripping legislation! I'm not interested in theological arguments, or catering to the deluded, I'm interested in maintaining our basic civil rights!

I don't think many are aware of how fragile our system is right now. A failure to deliver on health care could lead to a resurgence of the Rethuglican right-wing, who are presently nothing more than tools of the reconstructionist christians who would turn this country into jesusland.

Yes, we need to be aggressive, the more aggressive the better. I don't think we would be "stooping" to anything, when you consider what's at stake here. I probably shouldn't write things like this after watching the Yanks fold to the Phillies like they did tonight, I guess.

Perhaps it was my Britishness that accented my statements here. I have no affiliation in Sports but have since looked it up and think that things may have gone better after that post for the Yankees (at least I hope!)
I agree completely that there are bigger issues afoot than debating the existence of "god".

Yes, we need to promote ONLY scientific teaching in schools. Nobody wants children taught lies and empty propaganda. If the creation "scientists" can ever give one iota of scientific evidence for their claims, or even a reasonable scientific hypothesis, I would be happy to see kids taught that. They cannot, because their is none. I like to think that after two thousand years the churches would have found it.

The important thing here is that there is a growing movement for rationality, and advancing beyond superstitious credos of the past generations. The more we can spur this and encourage anyone to openly support our position, the more we can counter public decisions based on faith based policy.

I believe health care is a moral debate in that all humans deserve health care by need. Coming from England this is considered standard. We brought it in after WW2 because, well, everyone needs healthcare. A corrupt insurance industry, funding corrupt officials, never got a foothold.

I am interested in theological arguments, and meeting the deluded head on. They have too much power and should be shown for what they are, at best, selfish manipulators, at worst, shameless criminals (see the recent faith healing clause in public policy). When we take power from the manipulation of the "anointed", we can use that to push for a real humanist policy change.
Every move organizations like the FFRF make is a good move in attacking the tentative stronghold the fundys and the daily sheep have on real life and real progress.

I agree that social issues are key, but wouldn't it be easier to pass real social legislation if the crazies had less following and thus less power? If we demonstrate humanity without a deference to god and a corrupt clergy are we not empowering the people to help themselves more fully?

All that sounds a bit leftist on rereading, but who as a humanist if not for social justice and equality. I have yet to meet a neo-con humanist...

Note: If there are neo-con humanists reading this I really want to hear your reply!

Semi -Comical Rhetorical Query & Existential Puzzler

I often sit around & wonder (as it is my right to do) : Where do "rights" - civil or others - come from? The word & concept has that connotation of something you're born with, endowed with from "on high" or just by virtue of being a human & deserving of a better deal than animals because we happen to be at the top of the Food Chain -at the moment- but certainly we the people haven't always been so lucky & may not be post nuclear apocalypse. I know that people residing inside borders of USA get alot of theirs from what the revered founding "father" dudes wrote down in the Constitution & thru subsequent tweeks.

People sling that word around alot these days.

They bellow & bleat it out constantly on Cable TV:

"I have a right to health care dammit!"
It is my right to insult people as long as it is not a communicating a death threat."
"People should have to right to read without others making loud noises."

I think 'rights' are more of an engineered privelege.. .. A result of the rule book penned by writers/top dogs du jour. Rules - Laws- Commandments?
If we like 'em they're "rights" - if we don't, they're tyranny & we have a right to chop off heads of authors.
Interesting concepts: RIGHTS & WRONGS