A word on the blog roll. My smaller section, which doesn't have a drop-down, represents blogs I try to read regularly. The larger pop-down section consists of 50-60 blogs that I think are decent blogs but which I don't have so much time to read. The first list changes, but once a blog is on, my tendency is to keep it at the very least on the second list.
I have, however, removed the Raving Atheist due to some recent events. I first became aware of the controversy through Daylight Atheism. First, some background.
As Daniel Morgan pointed out to me, I've come to his defense before. Also, when PZ Myers went after him for his opposition to abortion, I was silently thinking "Hey, a big tent is good," even if I thought RA's "life begins at conception" stance was irrational.
It started with Franc Tremblay posting a somewhat off e-mail from RA to the Atheist Mommy (not The Atheist Mama), but which she seemed to take in good stride, judging from the full conversation posted by RA. The weirdest part, though, was he finished his response to Tremblay by saying that, on behalf of one of his friends at a crisis pregnancy center, he would "never write another bad word about Jesus or Christianity on The Raving Atheist."
This got PZ Myers predicting a conversion to Christianity and Pandagon recommending it "so we can be rid of you." This got Daylight Atheism on the case, blasting RA for his closing statement, and Brian Flemming said:
I have no idea what's going on with RA. But it's damn interesting.Basically, I agree with Daylight. Declaring a religion to be free from criticism is stupid. It's the kind of stupidity we expect from mainstream culture, but a guy who calls himself the "Raving Atheist" and regularly bashes the God Squad (or used to) should know better.
It may be some kind of a stunt, but that's okay -- I'm a sucker for stunts. As are you, if you read this blog.
Wait... did I say the weirdest thing was the end of his response to Tremblay? Scratch that. The weirdest thing is Sunday's post, in which he took predictions of conversion as accusations of conversion and said he would neither confirm nor deny those accusations. The only explanation is that he's either converted or is on the brink of conversion. I briefly thought he might be trying to do something clever, but no, from reading his post he clearly isn't in the right frame of mind for cleverness.
Blogosphere, meet the world's newest, nastiest Christian fundamentalist.
Oh, and a side note. In his most recent post, he said the following:
I have noticed that with few exceptions the blogs and books that pursue the themes of this one care very little to discuss the truth of the premises that drive them, or even to identity the premises themselves. Few of my critics have set forth a systematic exposition of their own atheological views. Most neither know nor care about natural or revealed theology or the difference between them. Those who rant and rage against theocracy, of the problem of religion in society, rarely address the truth of religion itself.RA, if you have really converted to Christianity, I would like to say that I would be happy to address "the truth of religion itself" in a formal online debate with yourself. Topic: "Resolved that God does not exist."