Frans de Waal, in the New York Times’ philosophy blog, The Stone, says “The issue is not whether or not God exists — which I find to be a monumentally uninteresting question” — in other words, there is no God, all reasonable people can agree on this, but there are interesting social policy questions about what we atheists should do in light of that fact. How is this a discussion among “moderates” where the extremes were defined as theism and atheism? Actually, what should we do about religion is itself pretty uninteresting and largely settled in the West: nothing, let people make their own decisions about it as their needs and consciences dictate. The only other questions I can see being debated by “moderates” that remain are of the form “given that religious beliefs are obviously false, what are the causes and consequences of them?” Again, from the theist perspective, this is hardly “moderate” since the theist’s beliefs and interests are entirely excluded from consideration from the get-go.
Give me a good old-fashioned militant Enlightenment anticlerical any day over this civilized mush. Better to be killed in battle than killed with kindness.