The term "wimpy atheist" seems like the wrong term to employ when discussing the type of person you describe. I would say nonconfrontational naysayers is much more apropos.

As for the visual imagery "wimpy atheist" creates, I tend to picture a person devoid of muscle tone, physically unfit, and unable of sustaining much physical exertion. Just my two cents.

I'm an atheist, but it annoys me when other atheists think that I somehow have to be of a particular oppinion about other things than the existence of God, simply because I'm an atheist. I can knock whoever I want, for whatever I want, including being a "mean" or "crass" atheist towards undeserving believers. I don't ow you anything just because we are both atheist.

Actually that is not true, I do ow you something. I ow it to you to be honest and forthcoming about who I am and what I believe, just like I ow everybody else.

I don't knock the RRS for being too hard on Religious people, because they are not. The RRS is an organisation fighting for the right to be accepted in a society that doesn't accept them as equals, and even fear and hate them at times. I have alot of sympathy for that, and I say more power to you. All of you.

But I will still reserve my right to knock anyone individual on here who is being a dick to his fellow man, purely because that fellow man happens to be theist. I am glad to say it doesn't happen often here, further supporting my experience that atheists really are more decent people, on the whole, but I still feel not only entitled, but dutybound to respond to bigotry, hatred, oversimplification, patronising, arrogance and unwarranted animosity from immature atheists, towards theists.

And so should anyone, if they want to feel entitled to call themselves good people.

(Notice how this post started with "I'm an atheist, but..."?. I've read Dawkins, and I agree that alot of the responses he got to his book starting with those words were unfairly judging what he did, but I don't feel that it is impossible to start something with those words without being unfair to the "new atheist" community at large. So I just did, and I stand by it. If you are gonna be a dick I will call you on it. Don't expect me to keep my mouth shut simply because we're both atheists.)

P.S: How does one spell "ow" as in "I don't ow you anything"?. It's not "ow" I can see that.

silence is consent.

To be an engaged atheist is a personal victory.

We seem to go over this time and time again....the ONLY thing an athiest has to do with is not being a thiest.

You can be confrontational, irrational, bigoted, witty, Democrat, Republican, Neo-Nazi, tolorent, gay, bald, wimpy, popeye, olive oil...

You dont have to hold any other philosophy and really shouldnt be expected to....if you are not a thiest, you are atheist...that is the end of it.

EDIT....and damn the guy above me for using my wimpy reference 2 mins before I got it up

If I can see where both sides are coming from, what does that make me?

open-minded.

Here's my philosophy:

If I'm left alone, I'll leave everyone else alone. However, when someone tries to impose their beliefs on me, I calmly tell them that I'm not interested. If they persist, I don't overreact. If you simply be persistent and don't give in to some of the theists' bait, the victory is even more glorious.

Thus, I believe in being myself. I have faults, as does any other person. Some of us have more faults than others. In fact, it SHOULD be this way, as it even reflects evolution and "survival of the fittest" in a sense.

The public image of "evil atheists" will not change if that is all that is presented. There SHOULD be militant atheists, and there SHOULD be more passive atheists. My parents, before they knew I was an atheist (I just came out two days ago, actually), thought that atheists were immoral, stupid people. I'm more passive, and it contradicts the imagine that they have seen. That in itself made my view more accepted.

So, to summarize: We need militant atheists to help us gain the rights we deserve, and we need passive atheists to give us a better image. And some people in between  would also be fine.

This reminds me of an earlier post somewhere comparing the atheist to the civil rights movement. My comparisons:

The subjects of this thread would be like the average black man or woman who didn't like discrimination but didn't make waves.

The more moderate (like Infidel guy or Dan Barker personally) Would be like Martin Luther King

The more militant (Richard Dawkins, RRS, FFRF as a group) would be like Malcolm X or the Black Panthers.

Of course none (or very few) of us resort to violence, note that we aren't lynched and beaten the way they were.

That you would classify as wimpy, but the truth is they don't really care to stand against other believers because as far as they are concerned they simply don't care. They live their lives and continue to work hard and do what they do to be happy, and they are atheists (which I suspect there are more atheists like this than they are those that are confrontational). There are many theists like this as well that they believe as they believe, don't impose it on others and really don't care to or care what other people believe, they simply believe, work and do what they do to be happy. I wouldn't call it wimpy, just indifferent.

To me, all people fall into one of these categories when it comes to how what they believe about life, religion and the world.

Delusional, Lying to themselves and others, Rational and don't care about shit.

"Wimpy atheists" fall into the don't care about shit category.

Well, actually I agree. You don't have to agree that the RRS way is the "right way", but don't knock them.

I see it as getting the "no god/no religion" message out there and making people think for a change. You need to use different tactics to reach different audiences. The RRS has its own approach, other groups have different approaches. But really, who has heard of them anyway.

Active atheists like Dawkins and the RRS are actually getting publicity and making people think. There are many religious folk who didn't even realise there was an option of not believing until they heard the stir these good people are causing.

Jello: it makes you an atheist. You have the right to your own opinion and viewpoint. My problem is with the CSAs having a go at people for being outspoken and crying "don't poke them, they won't like you anymore".

Here's news for you people: THEY DON'T LIKE YOU ANYWAY!! They think you are going to burn in hell for eternity!!

Expressions NOT to use:

Survival of the fittest. - It was not coined by Darwin, does not acurately describe evolution, and is massively misused.

Militant atheist. - Coined by religious folk to demonize atheists and make us sound like terrorists. I prefer "active atheists"     (as opposed to passive) or "outspoken atheists". Most atheists are actually peace-loving folk.

Note: I said we do need people that are willing to be (well, I used the word "militant", but I suppose active is better) active. I didn't "knock them." I just said it shouldn't be expected that all atheists are this way. And I gave my philosophy. AND, I didn't say Darwin coined survival of the fittest, but it most certainly does take some part in evolution, especially micro evolution. It was just an attempt at an analogy.

And here's news: before knowing that I was an atheist, my family LOATHED them. The only reason they accept it is because they know that I spend more time working for others through charity than I do myself. It completely changed their perspective of atheists. You can call me a wimp, but at least for now I think it's more important that I have a good relationship with my family.

Amen. If someone says something stupid, correct them. Holy war enthusiasts, Christian Scientists, and voodoo priestesses need to be disabused of their b.s. notions for the sake of everyone. 

I agree. Why is it if someone says the Earth is flat or that the sun is not a star and revolves around the Earth we are free to call them an idiot but if someone says the Earth is only 6,000 years old we are supposed to "respect their views?"

Sorry I don't respect views that don't deserve respect. Certainly respect the person unless they do something for you not to, but not their erronious beliefs.

I think the idea, Matt, is that we respond, but not in kind. We respond with reason, rationality (or we try, sometimes we don't succeed) to their inanities. But this brings up a good point. We must remember what reason and rationality actually mean: we listening to opposing viewpoints and discuss them like reasonable people. We can do this and be mean or we can do it and be polite, but there's a difference between that and just being insulting, which is to be reserved for the SpamPreaching and the haters.

Don't write people off. There are former "Trolls" on this page who've had the label removed by the mods, and rightly so, because the mods recognized reason within another.

Yes, invite all the people to RRS for some atheist love and friendly spanking! Cussing allowed for dramatics. Thank everyone for expressing themselves. Invite all communication. Fuck yeah ....

Thanks for the clarification. Honestly, I think most of us agree, we're just using different wording. I think I took the original post the wrong way. I apologize.

Yes, we should be bold. But be careful and considerate too. Street preachers and door knockers and people who are generally in your face about religion are annoying assholes. If you do the same you will be one too.

The blasphemy challenge was great, but like I said: media coverage and personal interaction are different.

Everyone at work knows I am an atheist now, and they are still my friends. I talk about it at the level they are comfortable with. This way they will think about it. Just knowing that I am an atheist and a nice guy gives them something to think about.

If I was in their face or challenged them too much they would not think that what I had to say was worthwhile, they would just think that I was a crazy atheist asshole who is going to hell so I would have no effect on them.

You don't have to be silent, just considerate.

In response to a recent thread that was deleted - understand I am NOT advocating doing something stupid like damaging property or assaulting someone. I'm talking about speaking up - challenging theistic beliefs - writing letters to the editor, writing things online, making videos - or writing books for those who can. I think virtually everone got this anyway, but for anyone else - don't blame this thread if you get arrested for doing something stupid.

Yes, everyone tires of the evangelical Christians who give out the handouts, asking you if you know Jesus, telling you your going to hell, God hates fags, etc....

but I would discourage atheists from taking the same approach as the fundamentalist, evangelical Christians.  There is a difference between intelligent discussion with theists and forcing ones own opinions down peoples throats. 

Unless you want the phrase "evangelical Atheist" coined anytime soon.