You are simply hosting the Gnu atheist admirathon. No wonder B&W has been disowned by more rational voices.
Which more rational voices? Wally Smith? Chris Mooney? Tom Johnson? Josh R? Steph the Pixie?
Do you really think it’s the Feast of Reason?
Of course not. Did I ever say I did? No.
There is nothing any longer on B&W worth reading that isn’t cut from the same cloth.
Sorry; I just don’t buy it. Even if you hate the blog part of B&W, there is plenty that’s worth reading.
It’s a hornet’s nest to any disagreement.
Mirror. Look in it.
Your readers aren’t the least bit interested in civil discourse: when challenged they revert to the same tropes, and when that fails, invoke the myth that atheists have been persecuted historically. It is pure crap, it is untrue, and it really deserves to be outed.
I think the reality is that many of the people who read B&W aren’t very interested in lectures on civil discourse from you at present, because you have been throwing around insults as if you had to use up your stock before midnight. And if you think atheists are not stigmatized, you’re not even listening to yourself, let alone the rest of the commentariat.
And why so brave–did they talk to you to talk back to Hoffmann and show some spine? Just asking?
No. Just answering.
No, Ophelia: B^W is just a sounding board for like-minded hard atheist opinion.
There are no butterflies there anymore just gasbags like the seminally under-qualified Eric McDonald and clowns like PZ Myers, who could benefit from a reading comprehension course with an emphasis on analogies. As I recall, Myers was lambasted as such at last year’s CFI 30th, so why don’t we say we are dealing with an atheist fringe that threatens always squandering its capital on its worst instincts?
This is civil discourse is it?