Richard Dawkins attends Christmas Eve services and loves to sing along. UK atheists don't seem to get all bent out of shape over Nativity scenes either. I watched a Pat Condel (or was it DPR Jones/) video last year where he went into a rant about atheists who get worked up over religious Christmas displays. His point was it was part of the culture and it would all be gone in 5 wks or so anyway.
Christmas Eve is my favorite Mass of the year. We're going to the 3pm Children's mass, so everyone can get to bed on time or at least enjoy the joy of Christmas in the evening.
Even if you're convinced Jesus never existed (present your overwhelming evidence any time), I have yet to meet a single atheist who disagrees with his moral philosophy. Kind of strange that no one took credit for those teachings. Atheists are quick to remind Christians when they deviate from the core values they aspire to.
Tonight the churches will be packed. Nice of you to give up your seat in the pew for those who want to be there. Almost seems like you're giving a Christmas gift by opting out.
Merry Christmas, everyone!

Really? Michael Shermer is the lecherous old white man they were referring to? He's the last one I'd expect! He's always a perfect gentleman. Even in Expelled, he came across as one of the nice guy atheists.

Why do only men get taken out of context? Heck, take anything Watson says in context and she more than qualifies as a raving misandrist.
And other than churn out drama, what has she done for the "community?" The list of things she's done TO the community is endless. Same with OB.
It seems that atheism is more of a "guy thingy". Women in pretty much any other circumstance tend to talk circles around their male counter-parts. Why is breast cancer so special compared to all those unisex cancers? Yes, a small percentage of breast cancer patients are male. But they weren't out there lobbying congress to mandate health insurance providers to cover annual mammograms (for WOMEN over 40. Not men).
Can't we just throw RW and OB under the bus instead of Shermer?
Disclaimer: I am female, BTW.

Most popular atheist blogs and forums are unabashedly offensive and hostile toward theists and "religion". Whatever curiosity leads one to research an alternative point of view, vanishes when one first is confronted with insults. Atheists stubbornly cling to the "invisible sky daddy" and "ancient goat-herder superstition" memes.
This post conflates 2 different situations. There is the average Joe who just hasn't made the connection that useful, do-it-yourself, freely available information can be easily found online. Getting a feel for what search terms yield the relevant information takes some practice as well. Many need a little hand-holding before they are confident that they can perform simple searches without unintentionally downloading malware. That's a hole they have no clue how to get out of. Re-installing an operating system is not part of the novice skill set. I can list dozens of other barriers that trip unsavvy individuals up. It's a combination of fear, lack of confidence, or other challenges that are hurdles to the pre-information era population. Heck, there are people who never learned how to type with 2 fingers.
But it seems you are expecting even more from these people. You want them to empathize with the atheist world view. If the neutral environment of the internet is a barrier, then do you really expect people to put additional effort to try to understand your worldview? That's like expecting liberal progressives to understand conservatives by tuning into AM talk radio. Actually, Rush Limbaugh and Bill OReilly are mild compared to PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, Rebecca Watson, or any of the popular YouTube atheists.
How many atheists research apologetics? Watching a debate is just as useless because people root for their team, rather than evaluating the opposition's arguments. Some atheists read the Bible. But they tend to stick to the same literal interpretation that the fundamentalist Christians do, because how do you know which is metaphorical or meant word by word? They consider it A book. Not a collection of books written by different authors, spanning over centuries, with different points to convey. The atheist definition of faith is typically a controversial quote by Mark Twain, instead of any of those found in the dictionary. What is a theist supposed to learn besides that atheists believe religion is the root of all of society's evils? That religious faith is a form of mental illness? That they are closed-minded and science deniers? That Christianity clings to Young Earth Creationism?
If atheists approached theists in the spirit of mutual understanding, or at least tolerance, there is a chance the other side could open-mindedly learn something about non-belief. But insulting people from the get-go will never work.

Yes, you did.
I apologize for missing it.
DOH!

Criticizing Atheism+ is the new blasphemy. Except they refer to all challenges to the ideology as "hate speech". But since high-lighting the hypocrisy, the group-think,dishonesty,and absurdity is such grave threat to the ideological purity, additional steps are taken for good measure. Rather than object to the odious ideas, those who dare to speak the truth are labeled misogynists and bigots.
When atheists speak out against religion, it is the righteous thing to do. Exercising freedom of speech is a cherished human right. But criticizing Atheism + is censored in creative ways to ensure "safe spaces."
How is it that we decry religious believers for the exact same tactics that are merely rebranded as "fighting for social justice" when Freethinkers employ them? It's all well and good to scrutinize religious belief relentlessly. But question gnu atheism +, and it's hate speech and douchebaggery.
Just sayin!

Regarding the meaning behind the tweet to Jen. In the past, her boyfriend persuaded her to take a break from blogging. It's become a joke that a proud feminist let a man tell her what to do. Of course it was her decision then, just like it is now. Either he felt neglected or saw it was stressing her out.
I have to go to work now. Maybe I can find a link to the relevant post by Jen tonight when I get home if anyone is interested. And in the spirit of transparency.

Good point. Why is there a link to the tweet so we can read it ourselves but not a link to Justin's post on AVFM? Does it really matter what other views are expressed by other individuals on this site? Websites that feature guest bloggers usually have a disclaimer that alerts readers that the views expressed by the guest do not necessarily represent the views of the site as a whole.
Even a link to the "about" section would be the unbiased thing to do. Whatever happened to transparency. Instead we have to take VJack's opinion of another blogger's opinion. What does that have to do with Justin?
Dr. Harriet Hall aka the SkepDoc contributed to O Magazine for a few months hoping to give a skeptical voice to the alt-med frequently promoted by Oprah's media outlets. Does this fact call her integrity into question? Of course not. But since she's a "bully" for wearing a T shirt with her views printed on it, we could throw her under the bus too.

none of my comments are ever approved :(
Hi VJack!

From the Tweets, I'd say your friend has an irrational fear of using labels precisely. Instead of commenting to your post directly, he scolds you with logical fallacies as talking points. So what if the same argument is supposedly made by those awful "Christians" he despizes. As you've pointed out, "homophobia" has been used incorrectly as well.
I'd say he's a Christophobe. It scares him when they might be right! He's afraid of that he has to give up using his favorite pejorative for those who support traditional marriage. This guy obviously has an agenda that could be uraveled. It frightens him. What's next?
Is he one of those atheists who buys into the Christian conspiracy to turn the US into a theocracy? You know, have an official national church of the United States, like they have in half of the European countries? NO not THAT!