I read the article and understand his concerns. They are valid
  concerns. It's not the message, it's the approach.

  Think about it:

  What kind of responses did he get?

  Articles and people saying he's advocating scientists to become
  militant atheists.

  Of course he wasn't exactly saying that. But if that's the
  message that's being received, then he's just preaching to the
  converted.

  Among the converted, SOME will read him correctly as you did.
  Some will not. Among those who bristle against the term
  "militant atheist" - whether or not it's used in sarcasm; some
  will read him correctly as you did. Some will not.

  Sarcasm is poor communication. It will be and has been
  misinterpreted.

You are viewing proxied material from sdf.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.