A Believers Critique Of The Humanist Manifesto

At least he is honest about it.

She has no right to post on the site. It is a dick move by Percy, but it is funny and well he can do what he wants.

It isn't censorship

I was thinking the same thing. Never heard of him. I think fundies can not conceive of the idea that no one speaks for atheists or atheism. What ever this guy has to say has nothing to do with what any other humanist or atheist has to say or what they think. These are his viewpoints. There is no humanist or atheist dogma.
Phat is on his apologist kick and he seems to think his view that Ravi the shyster kicked Sam the misogynists' butt(these are not personal attacks against them, it is reasonable conclusion based upon verifiable evidence). It has no bearing on anything. All a humanist apologist can do is defend their own belief set.
He also seems to be obsessed with the "Four Horsemen". This is a media created designation. I know of no one in the atheist world that considers these guys to be leaders of any sort. The only thing I have in common with Sam Harris is that we both do not have a belief in a god. I don't care about anything he writes or says as it has no effect on my belief set.
Here is a difference between believers and nonbelievers. Believers let and expect apologists determine what they believe. Seemingly they have no confidence to make their own decisions or to even read the plain text of their religious tomes. Nonbelievers will listen to defenders of atheist and humanism, but do not and will not adjust their beliefs to what is said and written. Facts and data drive our belief set, not word salad.

Agreed. Much better than how I put it, but that is the meaning I was actually trying to express.
We listen, learn and mature. What we don't do is take what they say and accept it uncritically.