Even the term "reparative therapy" is hurtful because it insinuates that gay people are somehow broken and require tending to repair. What a sad little man.
My recent post Even In The Face Of Righteous Klingon Shredding, Adult Contempo Jesus Trekkers Reign Supreme!

I went to a conference once, but I went because I had never been to one before and I was really interested in the lesser known speakers who had experience and education in subjects like church/state law. I don't know if I would go again and I didn't really get along with other people who attended - it kind of reminded me of church with a lot of excited people who were chatting it up only because of a single common similarity. I'm not saying it sucked, but it wasn't my thing.

For some reason I can do that with my nerdy interests a lot easier than with my atheism. Again - that's probably just me.

As for the celebrity factor - isn't that kind of a product of (at least American if not human) culture? People like PZ and Dawkins are far more what other people want them to be than who they really are, I suspect, and this suits people very well until the illusion is broken. And of course, it's always easier to blame the illusion for not being real than to address why exactly you're so upset when they are human/elated as long as they conform to your idea of who they are and what they represent for you, right?

Bravo! I wouldn't be surprised if you received an angry letter from Chopra demanding you stop letting everyone know the secret to his own formulation process. That guy is a pro at talking a lot and saying absolutely nothing of value.

Being involved in projects where you spend a lot of time and concentration producing a product that people consume for free is difficult in part because of emails that that. My response is usually - "OK, if you think we're 'doing it wrong', why not produce something of your own and act as an example instead of bitching?" Constructive criticism is awesome. Crap like this? Sincere or not, I ignore it.
My recent post In Scotland- Humanist Weddings Outnumbered Catholic in 2010

I am definitely going to go see it now. Sounds hilarious!

Obviously at times being a "dictionary atheist" is necessary - especially when a theist starts telling atheists what they are and aren't. But I think PZ was trying to make the point that a lot of atheists, especially those that are actively involved somehow with their atheism (through blogs, podcasts, youtube stuff, etc.) DO have a far more more complex (though decidedly unique) response to the question "why are you an atheist." and those who insist (PZ labels these people dictionary atheists) that atheism must ONLY mean a lack of belief in gods are full of it. Or rather, are ignoring the complexity of the question for the sake of being technically correct.

I keep seeing people get their knickers in a twist about PZ trying to re-define what atheism is for everyone based on himself. I don't see this. I think he laid out a context in which he wrote his post and I think a lot of responses to it take it out of that context and then claim that what he said is super off base.

I do think he over-generalized a bit in the blog post, which is annoying. But I just can't really bring myself to care THAT much about what PZ Myers has to say about anything, really. No offense to him, I think he's great, but I felt like he was writing a cathartic blog post filled with opinion. I disagree with people's opinions ALL THE TIME - I guess I don't understand why this is worthy of an idiot of the week slot when there are people actively DOING things to screw other people over.
My recent post S3E4- Living After Faith

I read somewhere that a handful of politicians got together the next day and made a prayer circle before the next Senate meeting began - but it wasn't led by the senate, nor was it officially endorsed or promoted in any way. I don't understand why more government entities can't just go in this direction. Everyone gets their freedom of speech and expression and no one is violating the constitution (I mean...right?) - seems like a win/win!

I think trying to compare the two is a bit like apples and oranges. I think a better comparison would be that you as a teacher told your student aid - whose only job is to administer the lesson plans you have chosen and to help kids with what they want help with - decided that they weren't going to do that and that what the kids told them they needed help with isn't want they actually need. Even that could be understandable under some circumstances, but if that student aid decided they didn't want to do their job because their religion is anti-math, they knew that their job might entail math, and they chose their job anyway - I see that as a problem.

What do you think the original question is? I feel like you might be confused. Thanks for your interest in my blog! I appreciate your readership. :)

Really? Why does it sound like the latter? What do you mean by "different" and why do you think I'm striving to achieve it to the point of being self congratulatory? I'd like to know, honestly.