PZ recently attacked critics of the New Atheism, portraying them as stupid and "uncool." As one of those critics, I responded. I don't care if he calls me "uncool" (that might have worked in Middle School) but was eager to see the greater intelligence of the Gnu tribe on display. The extreme vacuity of most of the actual responses (often I think from intelligent people), which made Loftus & Co look rather good by comparison, brought me back to the word "lazy" again.
More than a hundred of Myer's troops responded, mostly with puerile insults and obscenities. A few rose to a higher level of invective, by trying to deconstruct what snippets of my book, The Truth Behind the New Atheism, they could find on-line. The assumption was, apparently, that if they found some debatable comment in my book, that would somehow neutralize the points I made in that thread. But these arguments seldom showed that their authors had tried to deal with the substantive point they were debunking fairly: there was a lot of mangling of text.
There were, to be fair, two or three more interesting responses, including a clever parable.
But thinking such experiences through, and the modus google-andi of Dawkins & Co, I posted a piece called Zombie Attacks: the Intellectual Laziness of the New Atheism:
Does indolence explain the attitude and arguments of the New Atheism?
I'm not claiming that atheists never work hard at research. (Some of the writers here are pretty thorough -- Hector Avalos, for instance.) But it's even harder work, listening to a point of view you don't agree with. It takes a mental effort that goes beyond googling a few key words, or even reading books, to really understand and evaluate an opposing point of view fairly.