Atheist writers

I am about ready to toss in the towel looking for a good, open-minded, inclusively leaning atheist writer. My atheist friends, I really feel for you. It's not enough that you guys face major discrimination, that a majority of American voters wouldn't vote for an atheist candidate, you have to put up with this weird Freudian projection thing from opponents, that... Well, you know the laundry list better than I do. But on top of that, the representatives who get the major air time are... Well, it's about like if I were judged on the basis of Fred Phelps, Pat Buchanan, and Pat Robertson. (Never trust an evangelist named Pat.)

The two I've found who don't significantly trigger the nut-o-meter are both internet celebs. They're not really getting the big book deals and video shots.

Greta Christina's generally OK. Except when she gets angry. Then I'm the enemy and nothing I can say or do will change that unless I change a fundamental part of myself or cease to exist. Can't help you there, ma'am. If you're interested in working together to solve those problems once you calm down, gimme a shout.
PZ Myers is also OK, but I personally wouldn't really call his page an atheist blog, because he generally concentrates on science. No, the two are not the same. Which nicely leads to my biggest complaint about most of the big name, well-known (well, as well-known as possible) atheist names.

Just because I have some religious beliefs does not mean I am a flaming moron who is actively hostile to fact-based reality and has no understanding of science.

I'm an extremely fact based person. I love data. Show me a study, and I want to know your sample size and your margin of error. Show a confidence interval too, and I'll squee. (Literally. I really did the last -- OK, the one -- time I saw a confidence interval included in a mass media write-up of some study or other.) I not only support the theory of evolution in the same way I 'support', say, the theory of gravity, but furthermore, I know the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a law.

Yes, I have some beliefs that are not fact based. Um, so does everyone. (Any Cubs fans? Sorry, guys, but the idea that "this is their year!" is not fact-based.) I personally don't expect other people to share my non-fact-based beliefs. They don't even have to like them, but I do expect a certain basic level of respect for the fact that I have them. If someone calls me a flaming moron for the mere act of having such beliefs, he and I are not going to get along. Point blank.

OK, I'll be honest. Anyone calls me a flaming moron, he and I are not going to get along, period. Everyone's got buttons.

Usually at this point someone says "Oh, you'll like Dawkins." No, I will not like Dawkins. According to Dawkins, I'm a wishy-washy fence-sitter who doesn't have the guts to be an atheist. I'm a liberal, you see, and liberal religious apparently doesn't compute so well him for him. So we're obviously in denial.

Actually, this brings up another point. A while back I watched this chunk of a Dawkins video. No more, because after getting slapped with the insanely irrational idea that religion is the only thing that will make 'good' people do 'bad' things (uh huh. Jingoism, fear, greed, lack of survival needs, those have NEVER caused such things. It's 100% religion. *eye roll* Tell me how this is rational.), I decided that an hour of my life was worth more than that. But, at the end of that snippet, he asks how religious people (Christians in particular) decide which parts of their scriptures, traditions, etc to believe and which to toss in a rhetorical tone that supports the "don't have the guts to be an atheist" implication.

Let's say I drop a stack of scientific studies on the desk in front of you. Some of these studies are well-done and insightful. Some are poorly done and biased. Some have a broad body of work ahead of them. Some are brand new areas, wholly unique. Now, how do you decide which of these studies to believe for the time being, which should be filed away for future observation but are not yet strong enough to act on, and which to toss as complete junk?

Same thing, guys. When I decide which portions of scripture might be worth keeping around and which should just be ignored, I look at my own life, I look at the contradictions in the work itself and the relative dates they were produced, I look at what we now know scientifically (yes, data trumps scripture for me), I weigh against some base assumptions (for instance, I refuse to believe in an incompetent asshole god), I use a little judgment, and I do come back and re-evaluate every now and then. It also helps to know a little history behind some of the books in the Bible. [Not all 66 (isn't that a terribly ironic number?), but I can tell you, for instance, that the books of Ruth, Job, and Jonah were all written as fiction, not intended to be taken literally, and Revelations likely was as well. (Apocalypses were a popular literary movement at the time. And Revelations was not necessarily a description of the end of the world anyway. The Greek word used in it is 'eon', an age.) See, more data. I like crunchy bits.]

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. So, Dawkins does not work for me due to his message that anyone who does understand and agree with science is either an atheist or a closet atheist, and conversely all religious people are morons, often violent. And he's about as good as it gets in the mainstream channels. Then there's Hitchens, who's probably about the most well-known atheist writer out there from my perspective. He's also the nuttiest. I'd almost think he was responsible for the "atheism is a religion too" BS some fundies spout, because the man is a zealot. And like many zealots, he has no problem lying to promote his beliefs. (He's also terribly sexist, and an arrogant dick to boot.)

I almost think it's a conspiracy that the atheist writers/speakers who get the air time and wide distribution are the nutty, non-mainstream ones. The media has an agenda to show that there's "something wrong" with atheists, so they only let atheists who are hostile to theists have the camera. Which doesn't help me find books by intelligent, inclusively-minded atheists, and certainly doesn't help my atheist friends get treated with the basic respect and rights all humans deserve.