"Militant" Atheist

[SlackMaster]

***WARNING***

In the first part of this video there is a bad word on the screen. If you are offended, please do not click the play button.

I've heard people whip this term out a few times here on the board. I thought the following video was a good response.

 

[atrasicarius]

 

[sangha]

I'll admit that I gave up at 2:58 because all he was saying was "I don't do the obnoxious things that some religious people do, so the obnoxious things that I do do are OK"

 

[SlackMaster]

I'll admit that I gave up at 2:58 because all he was saying was "I don't do the obnoxious things that some religious people do, so the obnoxious things that I do do are OK"

If you view the whole thing he makes a good point.

His "obnoxious behavior" is non-violent discussion with willing participants and he's labeled "militant" whereas, religious people seek out the non-religious to try and convert them, yet aren't militant. It takes actual violence from religious people to be considered "militant".

In a number of discussions here I've had my views dismissed because I'm a "militant" atheist. When I point out that religious people do what I do and worse, they're not militant they're just "following their faith."

 

[Temporal]

Militant is just a word. When I use it in the case of atheists I know they're not blowing up places or shooting people. It's just a word to indicate the severity of their interference and obstruction of discussion. As long as certain atheists are around, no discussion on religion can be had among the spiritual. They will just shout louder and louder until no one else can be heard.

That is what a militant atheist looks like to me anyway.

 

[sangha]

If you view the whole thing he makes a good point.

His "obnoxious behavior" is non-violent discussion with willing participants and he's labeled "militant" whereas, religious people seek out the non-religious to try and convert them, yet aren't militant. It takes actual violence from religious people to be considered "militant".

In a number of discussions here I've had my views dismissed because I'm a "militant" atheist. When I point out that religious people do what I do and worse, they're not militant they're just "following their faith."

Actually, I can understand being provocative, but I was turned off by justifying it with "but I'm not as provocative as the Jehovahs' Witnesses".. It reminds me of the people who say "You have to vote for Obama or say hello to president Palin"

And I consider the religious who passionately proselytize as "militant" christians, muslims, jehovahs' witnesses, etc

I also apply the term militant to atheists who insist that God does not exist or who insist on scientific proof for my beliefs.

 

[SlackMaster]

Militant is just a word. When I use it in the case of atheists I know they're not blowing up places or shooting people. It's just a word to indicate the severity of their interference and obstruction of discussion. As long as certain atheists are around, no discussion on religion can be had among the spiritual. They will just shout louder and louder until no one else can be heard.

That is what a militant atheist looks like to me anyway.

I think that's the stereotype that needs to be exposed.

For example. In another thread I said that Perry's prayer rally was not constitutional. Another poster responded that only militant atheists would be against something like this.

This idea that Atheist need to just shut up and if you speak up or disagree with the religious, you're being 'militants', needs to be questioned.

When a school board tries, or succeeds in getting ID taught in schools, they're just religious, they're not militant.

There's a double standard.

 

[sangha]

I think that's the stereotype that needs to be exposed.

For example. In another thread I said that Perry's prayer rally was not constitutional. Another poster responded that only militant atheists would be against something like this.

This idea that Atheist need to just shut up and if you speak up or disagree with the religious, you're being 'militants', needs to be questioned.

When a school board tries, or succeeds in getting ID taught in schools, they're just religious, they're not militant.

There's a double standard.

There's a difference between objecting to private practice of religion and objecting to a govt official promoting religion on the govts' dime. I have NO problem with the latter. There's a time and place (and means) for the former.

 

[Your Star]

I think that's the stereotype that needs to be exposed.

For example. In another thread I said that Perry's prayer rally was not constitutional. Another poster responded that only militant atheists would be against something like this.

This idea that Atheist need to just shut up and if you speak up or disagree with the religious, you're being 'militants', needs to be questioned.

When a school board tries, or succeeds in getting ID taught in schools, they're just religious, they're not militant.

There's a double standard.

No, they're idiots.

 

[Temporal]

I think that's the stereotype that needs to be exposed.

For example. In another thread I said that Perry's prayer rally was not constitutional. Another poster responded that only militant atheists would be against something like this.

This idea that Atheist need to just shut up and if you speak up or disagree with the religious, you're being 'militants', needs to be questioned.

When a school board tries, or succeeds in getting ID taught in schools, they're just religious, they're not militant.

There's a double standard.

Can't speak for others but that's not where I'm at. I would never tell you to shut up because you're an atheist. I'm not dealing in stereotypes here. As I said in my previous post, it's certain atheists who behave this way. They act entitled to criticize spirituality anywhere and everywhere, like it's their personal mission to debunk the universe for the rest of us. It's often uninvited.

As for Perry's prayer rally, I prefer not to comment because I don't really know the details. I don't follow Perry.

 

[NGNM85]

'Militant Atheism' is a myth created by Christians aggravated by the fact that anyone would have the temerity to question their extreme, and totally unsubstantiated hypotheses about the universe, etc.

 

[sangha]

'Militant Atheism' is a myth created by Christians aggravated by the fact that anyone would have the temerity to question their extreme, and totally unsubstantiated hypotheses about the universe, etc.

No, militiant atheism is about more than an opposition to christians. I have heard militant atheists argue than any belief in any deity(s) is a form of mental illness.

 

[scourge99]

No, militiant atheism is about more than an opposition to christians. I have heard militant atheists argue than any belief in any deity(s) is a form of mental illness.

i dont believe that belief in a deity is a form of mental illness. am i a militant atheist?

if i am a militant atheist then why? feel free to quote me from anytime in the last few years.

 

[DiAnna]

I've never even heard the term "militant atheist" outside of this forum. Seriously, how many atheist are militant in the real world? How many could afford to be? There are many places around the country where folks who are openly atheist won't be hired, certainly won't be elected to public office, and would in fact be shunned by the community. I wouldn't dare tell people that I know are religious that I am not. It's bad enough that my own "born again" daughter has told my grandchildren that grandma is going to hell because she doesn't believe in Jesus.

Well, hell, I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe he was the result of an immaculate conception between a virgin female and an invisible diety in the sky.

That's the thing, perfectly normal every-day people think that reviling atheists/agnostics is the godly thing to do... and damn, they do it! So whoever these "militant atheists" are, they must be pretty damned lonely... or buried in a Texas desert like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, "The Most Hated Woman in America."

 

[sangha]

i dont believe that belief in a deity is a form of mental illness. am i a militant atheist?

if i am a militant atheist then why? feel free to quote me from anytime in the last few years.

Probably not, but I'm not familiar with your posting history and I'm not about to go searching through past threads.

However, I do think you have been insistent and provocative about your position, but I don't think that makes one a militant atheist.

 

[Temporal]

i dont believe that belief in a deity is a form of mental illness. am i a militant atheist?

if i am a militant atheist then why? feel free to quote me from anytime in the last few years.

In the context of this internet forum, you are militant. You appear in almost every spiritual discussion to declare that everyone is deluding themselves. It's tantamount to trolling and it gets old after a while.

If people are always too busy having to defend their base line beliefs, then there isn't much room for delving into complex topics within spiritual systems.

It's kind of like how it's impossible to have a good discussion on the conception of human life and consciousness without it always devolving into a war over morals between pro-life and pro-choice.

 

[sangha]

In the context of this internet forum, you are militant. You appear in almost every spiritual discussion to declare that everyone is deluding themselves. It's tantamount to trolling and it gets old after a while.

If people are always too busy having to defend their base line beliefs, then there isn't much room for delving into complex topics within spiritual systems.

It's kind of like how it's impossible to have a good discussion on the conception of human life and consciousness without it always devolving into a war over morals between pro-life and pro-choice.

I would put atheists who call beleivers "deluded" in the militant camp.

 

[scourge99]

In the context of this internet forum, you are militant.

so now there is "internet forum militants" and "real world militants"?

You appear in almost every spiritual discussion to declare that everyone is deluding themselves.

please quote me randomly showing up in all these threads and declaring everyone is deluding themselves with their spiritual beliefs.

if i do it in every single thread as you claim then finding 2 or 3 in the last year should be easy. otherwise do the honerable thing and retract your accusation.

It's tantamount to trolling and it gets old after a while.

actually whats trolling is you shadowing my on this forum and accusing me of being a militant atheist every chance you get with nothing to back it up but your opinion and half baked theories about what you believe are my personal motivations.

If people are always too busy having to defend their base line beliefs, then there isn't much room for delving into complex topics within spiritual systems.

its real simple to avoid this problem
1 state your assumptions. eg, for this discussion on noahs ark we shall assume god exists and the bible is literally true.
2 dont respond to posts you dont want to address or reply saying such.

 

[scourge99]

I would put atheists who call beleivers "deluded" in the militant camp.

but some believers (and non believers) can be considered deluded, can they not?

for example, some flat earthers and schizophrenics.

 

[sangha]

but some believers (and non believers) can be considered deluded, can they not?

for example, some flat earthers and schizophrenics.

Irrelevant to my point. Some atheists are deluded too. I consider the militant atheists to be mostly deluded.

And atheism is not a prophylactic for mental illness or stupidity

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I've never even heard the term "militant atheist" outside of this forum. Seriously, how many atheist are militant in the real world? How many could afford to be? There are many places around the country where folks who are openly atheist won't be hired, certainly won't be elected to public office, and would in fact be shunned by the community. I wouldn't dare tell people that I know are religious that I am not. It's bad enough that my own "born again" daughter has told my grandchildren that grandma is going to hell because she doesn't believe in Jesus.

Well, hell, I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe he was the result of an immaculate conception between a virgin female and an invisible diety in the sky.

That's the thing, perfectly normal every-day people think that reviling atheists/agnostics is the godly thing to do... and damn, they do it! So whoever these "militant atheists" are, they must be pretty damned lonely... or buried in a Texas desert like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, "The Most Hated Woman in America."

Far as I can tell, a "militant atheist" is basically any atheist who's willing to admit being an atheist. :roll:

What religious people seem to believe qualifies as "bashing their beliefs" is pretty broad. Basically, disagreeing with their beliefs in any way qualifies as "bashing."

Which is inevitable, if you ever want to speak about it. You get into a religious discussion. You are obviously expected to state your opinion. You say you're an atheist. They ask why. And then the problems start.

The only answer to that question is some variation of "because believing in a deity makes no sense."

And as soon as you answer their question, as soon as you tell them why, no matter how politely you do it, a sufficiently dogmatic religious person will instantly label you as "militant." Simply for answering their damn question with the only answer there is. It's a set-up.

If you dare to do something like speak out about bullying of atheists in communities, discrimination in the work place and politics, or the un-Constitutional nature of whatever religiously motivated piece of legislation is currently worming its way through the system, then you are a "communist," at which point they will ask you why you defend atheism/the Constitution, at which point they once again throw out "militant atheist."

The only way to not be labeled "militant" is to either end the conversation at "I'm an atheist" and never allow yourself to be lured into explaining why, and to avoid criticizing anything that Christianity does, ever (but you also can't defend Muslims from discrimination, for the same reason).

The fact that this is considered to be reasonable and permissible is why people have to deal with crap like this all the time:

Seriously, how many atheist are militant in the real world? How many could afford to be? There are many places around the country where folks who are openly atheist won't be hired, certainly won't be elected to public office, and would in fact be shunned by the community. I wouldn't dare tell people that I know are religious that I am not. It's bad enough that my own "born again" daughter has told my grandchildren that grandma is going to hell because she doesn't believe in Jesus.

 

[SlackMaster]

I would put atheists who call beleivers "deluded" in the militant camp.

Then I may be a "militant" atheist by your standards.

Would a religious person who calls atheists deluded therefore be a "militant" Christian?

I'm not debating where people draw the line between "militant" and "non-militant." I'm pointing out that the term isn't applied equally to religious and non-religious.

Side note... If a man talks to God, that's not crazy. If the man claims that God is speaking to him... that's a little crazy. If you believe in an invisible man in the sky who impregnated a virgin and gave rise to a man who could walk on water, turn water to wine and who died and then rose again from the dead... that's just normal, because there are millions of people who believe the same thing. But if you were the only dude to believe that... someone might call you crazy, dare I say "deluded".

 

[sangha]

Far as I can tell, a "militant atheist" is basically any atheist who's willing to admit being an atheist. :roll:

Then you haven't been reading my posts. Some of them are on this thread.

But I consider atheists who think all people of faith are the same and react in the same way to be "militant"

 

[sangha]

Then I may be a "militant" atheist by your standards.

Would a religious person who calls atheists deluded therefore be a "militant" Christian?

If he thinks all atheists are militant, then yes. They would be a militant christian

I'm not debating where people draw the line between "militant" and "non-militant." I'm pointing out that the term isn't applied equally to religious and non-religious.

I would say that depends on which atheist (or believer) you speak to. Some don't apply it equally; some don't

IMO, to believe that "every (fill in the blank) believe (fill in the black)" is to believe in a delusion, unless the group is very small and cohesive.

Side note... If a man talks to God, that's not crazy. If the man claims that God is speaking to him... that's a little crazy. If you believe in an invisible man in the sky who impregnated a virgin and gave rise to a man who could walk on water, turn water to wine and who died and then rose again from the dead... that's just normal, because there are millions of people who believe the same thing. But if you were the only dude to believe that... someone might call you crazy, dare I say "deluded".

Only the biblical literalists believe that "God spoke to me" must always be interpreted literally. And IMO, there are just as many atheists who interpret the whole "God spoke to me" literally. Rigid literalism is pretty foolish to me, be it from an atheist or a believer

 

[scourge99]

Irrelevant to my point. Some atheists are deluded too.

I agree. That is why i said "some believers (and non believers) can be considered deluded".

And atheism is not a prophylactic for mental illness or stupidity

Who ever said or implied it was?

Being an atheist doesn't mean you are magically endowed with rationality, scientific thinking, a greater IQ or anything. In my experience some atheists tend to have far stranger ideas than a godly religion could ever think up. (This last part is important) All atheism means is that you don't believe in gods. Nothing more and nothing less.