In this thread, there are several ‘accommodationists believe…’ claims which risk ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacies. I’m quite sure there are some who do believe such things, but having been personally accused of such beliefs, I don’t think these conclusions are useful.

I also like ‘atheist’ and ‘anti-theist’, although I wonder how long it will take for such terms to also become loaded with connotations and assumptions.

I might add that I share Desiree’s view of the difference between objectives and goals. I think objectives work best as the visible component of a goal – the actual thing you expect to see change as a result of your action. Goals, on the other hand, can describe a more general achievement. I might have an objective to convince you not to vote for the God Party at the next election, for instance, but my goal is to prevent religious groups from holding power.

Read:

DELETED for violation of commenting policy (see “About” page)

To call an atheist an “accommodationist” only because he or she isn’t an anti-theist is to assume that all atheists should be anti-theists.

Sometimes I wonder if we are all separated by a common language.

No, this is very simple. The accommodationists are saying that religion and science can be compatible because there are scientists who are also religious, and that the atheists should not insist that science and religion are incompatible because it might scare away those who would otherwise like evolution.

The new atheists say it is condescending and dishonest to avoid the implications for religion of science.

I think part of the discussion, actually, is trying to control or decide where the “reasonable” part of the spectrum is. New Atheists think it excludes Christians (at least on this topic). Christians naturally object.

Accommodationists thinks the “reasonable” part of the spectrum includes Christians (even though Christianity apparently isn’t reasonable enough for them to be one), and therefore must exclude New Atheists. New Atheists naturally object.

Does anyone call anyone else an “accommodationist” for that reason? Once again, the word “only” seems to be employed inappropriately.

I’d have to disagree, from reading the “New Atheists” and the “accommodationists” themselves. The “New Atheists” argue that, as you once wrote, “Multiple strategies work better than single narrowly defined strategies.” The “accomodationists” tell the “New Atheists” to shut up because they’re hurting “the cause” (they really mean their cause, not the “New Atheists'” cause). That’s not polarized, it’s confused.

If any “New Athiest” has said anything like “our way is the only way” (keyword “only,” which is how you characterized it in your OP), I’d be amazed. (I’d be similarly amazed if any “accommodationist” would be generous enough to describe the “New Atheist” position correctly and judge them by it, instead of by some other standard.)

Also, describing the two groups as being at opposing ends of a spectrum is just strange, unless the spectrum is so simplistic as to be “how much the ‘New Atheists’ are harming the cause of science education.”