Responses to Sam Harris' article

Some smart answers to Sam Harris article I found so far:

Ellen Johnson:
http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=317&article=1
...Is the American Cancer Society just "against" something because they fight against cancer? Are they a "negative" organization? Is Greenpeace a negative organization because they are against pollution? Sounds silly doesn't it? Yet we buy into this nonsense when it is said about us.
In the end, the Theist doesn't give a damn what we call ourselves. You can call yourselves "sugar" and they will still hate you and lie about you if you are an activist or if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.
While we remain hung up on arguments over defining ourselves the extremist right wing Theists in America are defining the socio-political agenda for America and they don't give a damn what you think about their names.
...

PZ Meyers
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/letter_to_a_nonatheist_new_ath.php
...ike you, I look forward to a post-theist future when the term "atheist" is a quaint relic that lacks any contemporary context, as silly as saying that one is an a-Zeusist or an aleprechaunist. That time is not now, and you are ignoring reality to pretend that it is. We do have a context that makes atheism relevant and appropriate: we are immersed in a deeply irrational religious culture. Those labels you denigrate — "atheists," "humanists," "secular humanists," "naturalists," "skeptics," "anti-theists," "rationalists," "freethinkers," and "brights" — are useful rallying cries for the tiny, scattered bubbles of rationality drifting in the sea of superstition and ignorance. It's how we find each other and grow. It's how we build whole communities working for a common cause, rather than acting as isolated individuals....
It doesn't matter if you try to abandon the name, it's going to stick to you and us for a good long time; what we need to do is build our own positive values beneath that tag and change its meaning from within.

From the discussion on Sam Harris website:
We have to consider the context of this debate. Whatever label we embrace or is bestowed on us, be it atheists, rationalists, Brights, humanists or whatever, the core fact is that we are a minority.
At the same time, we know that many people who do not see themselves as atheists nevertheless harbor doubts about their faith. So the key challenge in moving toward a rational society is encouraging people with doubts to accept the validity of that doubt. This is a tall order in a culture that exerts cradle to grave pressure to reject doubt.
The primary benefit of a widely recognized atheism “brand”, as it were, is that it says to doubters, hey - there are other people who are thinking this too. I am not alone..
It is exactly this effect that sparked the ‘New Atheism’ movement. The books have presented the reasons why faith is a fallacy, but they also served as a rallying point for millions who now saw their amorphous doubt presented with sharp, bright clarity.
Where people once felt obligated to keep their doubts shrouded in opaque minds, now they see other minds going transparent, espousing rational thought, the fire of ideas carried forth by a label: atheism.
The value of a label isn’t so much for the world at large - it’s a way of telling a minority group that, yes, there are other people who think as you do. It establishes a point of gravity that can attract others on the edges.
I’m very glad Sam brought this up; we need to examine the tactical approaches to changing the culture. I think in the current context, the Out campaign is useful. The need for it will diminish in proportion to its success.

--------------------------------

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”
—Gene Roddenberry

“All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.”
—Stendhal