> Dakota <markp@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in news:email@example.com: > >> You made the claim that a few google searches support your suspicion >> that the majority of atheists are especially embarrassed by the antics >> of Bill Maher. Then you suggest we look for evidence to support your >> claim? That's not how it works. > > Funny. That's exactly how it works. Since you're unlikely > to trust my links and sources, I invite to discover something > for yourself.
I think you are a sci.math regular so surely you would know not to try to determine anything about the majority of atheists by searching the web.
<snip> > And to be clear, I'm not arguing this point at all. I > just made the comment, parenthetically, that I assumed > the atheist community was just as embarrassed about > their buffoons as Christians are of ours.
Belief and non-belief are not symmetrical because one is active and engaged and the other is (for the most part) passive. I image train spotters feel allegiance to other train spotters and even to bus spotters, but as a non-train spotter I don't align myself with other people who don't spot trains. I don't cringe with embarrassment even when a fellow non-train spotter says something silly or rude about train spotters.
Maybe in the US, where atheists are something of a reviled group, there is more of a tendency to "band together" and to worry about the image of atheists as a group. I don't think that applies nearly so much in less religious places.
<snip> > But again, you don't have to believe me, and I sure don't > care, but if you're curious, feel free to google away > until your curiosity is satisfied. Or not. I have > only one question on this thread, and none of you have > attempted to answer it.
Well I will: I am not embarrassed by what other atheists say. I don't see them as speaking for me or reflecting my views.
You, however seem to operate a sort of stupid-by-association rule ("[t]hey make you look like a lot of Flat-Earthers"), but I think such pronouncements are more harmful than useful.
 Actually I already did, but since I removed sci.math from the newsgroups due to non-topicality I think you didn't see it. -- Ben.