they won't sell many if the creationists get their way
Well, no, they won't.
It looks to me like they were making it clear that bcse wasn't wanted and that they were the ones who didn't want to be on board. Not as you suggest the other way around.
This is not my battle. For my purposes it doesn't matter who, to put it childishly, started it. Evidently Coyne's letter didn't fall from the moon. Stuff happened, people said stuff. Not edifying. I'm talking about where we now are: bridges appear burned, committee members are saying so be it.
As for explaining what Dawkins is really saying, it seems to be self explanatory.
I don't think it is, actually.
Hardly anti Dawkins and hardly the work of a group wanting to misrepresent him.
Entirely irrelevant. Focus, please, on the particular point being made.
As for suggesting Dawkins self censor himself. NOBODY has suggested that. They have said his views are used by creationists-they are. That that is not helpful-it isn't. But nobody has suggested he stops saying it at all.
The logic is quite clear. If Dawkins says stuff, which creationists then use and which is not helpful to anti-creationism, then the clear implication is that it would better if Dawkins either hadn't said, or didn't say, stuff like that. It would matter, wouldn't it?
It doesn't makes sense to me to imagine that someone might say "Dawkins said X, the creationists use this to do Y, the effect is to harm Z, but that's all great".
If it's true that what Dawkins says could lead to the defeat of anticreationism then clearly it can't be great, and you want him not to say it.
If you are suggesting otherwise than you clearly haven't understood what I wrote. Sorry I thought it was clear that it was a specific statement of fact not an order.
I understand what is being said. I don't interpret it as an order, which you are not in a position to give in any case. But nor is it merely
a statement of fact. It's a criticism. There's no need to get upset by me saying that. It's true, and furthermore it's presented as a criticism. It is problematic
for you that Dawkins talks like this. That's why you draw attention to the fact, not just because its of academic interest.
That's fine, it's a perfectly arguable point. There's nothing wrong, in principle, with criticising Dawkins for saying stuff which creationists use to recruit.
My contention, though, is that the criticism is incompatible with real neutrality and that other means of contesting what I accept could be a problem should be sought. I just want that point understood clearly, I don't want to launch into that debate again.
As for losing the support of the new/gnus like yourself.
Could I point out, one more time, that I do not in fact identify myself as a new/gnu atheist.
You don't want to join because it doesn't suit your ideology-fine nobody is forcing you.
Wasn't quite sure what you meant at that point. If this refers to me, I don't want to join mainly a) because of the attitude I've been greeted by, and only secondarily b) because I disagree with what appears to be the consensus strategy for dealing with certain issues. I have no ideological objection to campaigning alongside religious people, and nor, as you say, do most even of the gnus. I just don't think alliances require me to adopt or endorse the ideology of my allies; nor even to give up criticism of my allies. Slightest whiff of that, I don't like it.
Re preaching and free speech I was simply pointing out that preaching is preaching... I don't want to stop either, but neither do I particularly want to listen to either.
That wasn't what you said, but the clarification makes sense.
As for your second post. I would not be in the bcse if it made any concessions at all on the teaching of evolution in science nor any concessions to creationism being presented as in any way scientific in RE...Creationism is utter dishonest drivel....Whether or not there is a god currrently depends on your beliefs and philosophical arguments.
Yes, but my point was that you were wrong to make a moral equivalence between gnus and creationists merely on the basis of their (in your view) shared unwillingness to concede ground. That's why I asked the question, which you've answered but without addressing the actual point.
If you are suggesting bcse is making any concession then you really are mistaken.
To emphasise: this wasn't the point I was making at all
I was objecting to the equivalence you were setting up between gnus and creationists on the basis that neither seemed to compromise much. Rhetorically what you were saying was "gnus and creationists are as bad as each other". I think that is ridiculous.
How folk reconcile facts to their beliefs is the business of religion as long as they do not lie about those facts.
Well, it is
the business of religion. But it's also the business of anyone interested in how folk reconcile facts to their beliefs. You can imagine atheists might be interested in that. The BCSE should stay out of it, if it is neutral.