Dan (olddude) says that you are a good guy so I am going to try to get to know you. I am not going to ignore you as if you were like some of the others.

Lets start with this.

>>I have the right to criticize atheism or any other kind of "ism" if it becomes dogmatic and intrudes upon my right not to believe it."<<

The der Waal excerpt I linked to at the beginning of this thread makes the point that the neo-atheists have become as dogmatic at some of the believers they condemn.

>>I disagree with the notion of Militant or New Atheists since I think this is a canard.
Atheists haven't changed at all except now they (whoever and however different they are) are more vocal.<<

"neo" means "new" Der Wall complains about neo-atheists in that article and identifies Hitchens and Dawkins as neo-atheists and points to them directly as being too dogmatic.

You seem to be both praising der Waal for his insights and directly contradicting those insights. It confuses me. Would you please clear that up?