• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Militant Athiesm

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Dismissive comments that convey a sense of superiority and unwillingness to consider other perspectives. Obviously, behavior that isn't exclusive to "militant"/"new" atheists. To be more specific, any comments along the lines of "Religion is a crutch," "Religion was only used to explain phenomena that science now fully accounts for," and "Religion is inherently bad," which reflect simplistic and extremely half-hearted attempts at understanding either a. religion as a cultural phenomena, as others have mentioned and b. agnostic/ignostic arguments.

*Edit: I'm not opposed to all of those comments themselves, but the atheists I've known have generally been terrible at backing them up or presenting them in a compassionate, non-confrontational way.
This kinda sounds like more of an argument against closed-minded/thoughtless/tactless people rather than atheists. Surely the association of these traits with atheists is as problematic as the association of negative traits with religious people? I mean, sure, the words used will be different, but there are lots of people who are hostile to "behaviour X" and express it in a way that is not very tactful. Why talk specifically about "militant atheists" being problematic rather than the specific behaviour? Why do we have a need for every atheist to be compassionate and non-confrontational about their atheism at all times, but not for other groups of people? Sure, compassion is great (non-confrontational is a bit more subjective), but I'm not sure why atheists would (or should) have more or less than any other human.

People in general are pretty terrible at truly understanding the perspective of others. They are OK at putting themselves in others' shoes, but not so OK at putting themselves in others' experiences and personality in addition to the shoes. Atheists certainly don't have a monopoly on this weakness, nor are we immune to it.

I find it disturbing that people ever come to a point in their life where they think they've figured it all out and put a guard up to new ideas. But I'm willing to accept that even this will change for me as I encounter new theories and people.
I think most people are like this to various degrees, although barely anyone believes it of themselves. I do think that as a (very general) culture, atheists tend to promote the ideal of being open to new ideas, if not always the practice (many exceptions in both directions, obviously).

I'm still coming to grips with the fact that, on this subject, I'm in agreement with the dude who wrote "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus," but this line always comes back to me: "It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion." The article it comes from is really good.

Hmm, this is a bit of an odd thing to say. Many impulses are "human" but not particularly "good" - murder, greed, cruelty, self-interest, laziness, etc etc. I don't think that criticizing any particular human tendency implies that you can't support the positive traits of humanity.
 

mintleaf

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
505
MBTI Type
infp
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp
I tend to see religious people presenting a straw man view of atheism (for example, that atheists are supposed to present their views "in a compassionate, non-confrontational way") and then putting down atheists for not living up to that straw man view.

Why should atheists be non-confrontational? I don't think any of the New Atheists claim to be non-confrontational. Debate involves confrontation. See my comments above about the "marketplace of ideas."

To clarify what I meant by non-confrontational and compassionate (which were too strong of words): not unnecessarily abrasive or disrespectful. Debate is pointless without listening and carefully considering the other's ideas. And abrasiveness and disrespect aren't persuasive, unless it's for the benefit of your audience, rather than opponent.

I agree with you in your above comments about the marketplace of ideas. I obviously don't prefer the attitudes of many New Atheists to the previous passivity - at least where it was combined with genuinely good ideas - but it's definitely benefited the debates in some ways. Many people wouldn't even be interested if it hadn't become somewhat heated.
 

mintleaf

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
505
MBTI Type
infp
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp
This kinda sounds like more of an argument against closed-minded/thoughtless/tactless people rather than atheists.

??? It was supposed to be. I'm not against atheism in general, I'm against atheists who are close-minded/thoughtless/tactless. I don't think I implied that I found militant atheists any more problematic than people of other beliefs who act the same way. Sorry I wasn't clearer.

People in general are pretty terrible at truly understanding the perspective of others. They are OK at putting themselves in others' shoes, but not so OK at putting themselves in others' experiences and personality in addition to the shoes. Atheists certainly don't have a monopoly on this weakness, nor are we immune to it.

Yeah, I completely agree with you there.

Hmm, this is a bit of an odd thing to say. Many impulses are "human" but not particularly "good" - murder, greed, cruelty, self-interest, laziness, etc etc. I don't think that criticizing any particular human tendency implies that you can't support the positive traits of humanity.

It was referring to the desire to seek a higher power, something transcendent, etc., not the negative side of religious behavior.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
??? It was supposed to be. I'm not against atheism in general, I'm against atheists who are close-minded/thoughtless/tactless. I don't think I implied that I found militant atheists any more problematic than people of other beliefs who act the same way. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
Oh no, I get that. I guess I just have an issue with the "militant" label, since everyone seems to have a different definition. I have seen people using it to describe people who are not any more tactless/etc than the average human being - it just seems that many people are far more sensitive to the trait in atheists than they are in people expressing other opinions. So atheists who are tactless about their beliefs are "militant", but people who are tactless about say, parenting decisions, or politics, or whatever other controversial thing you want to discuss, are generally not labelled as militant, which doesn't make sense to me. It seems a pretty extreme word, like you're crusading for your opinions or something, and in the case of atheism, it often seems to be used to describe people who really are not behaving that radically.

It was referring to the desire to seek a higher power, something transcendent, etc., not the negative side of religious behavior.
Right. What I mean is that I don't understand why criticizing any tendency shown by humans is seen to be incompatible with humanism, since clearly humans have both positive and negative traits, in terms of their influence on other people. So I don't see why criticizing the desire to seek divine explanations for things implies a negative feeling about humanity as a whole. There are a number of human traits that could be argued to be "good" or "bad" (or both/neither). So, making an argument that a given human trait is good vs. bad doesn't really say anything about your views on humanity as a whole, in my opinion.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,444
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
See, this is exactly why I wanted real-life examples. I stay far far away from that subreddit (and most of reddit in general) because it's overwhelmed by misogyny, hatred, immaturity, and lack of self-awareness. It is far more of a "reddit population" thing than an "atheism" thing though, IMO - admittedly they are hard to separate due to the overlap, but there are many hateful subreddits that have nothing to do with atheism. Some subreddits are great, but many are overwhelmed by angry young men with a chip on their shoulder who want to blame someone, anyone, for all their problems in life. People also say things on the internet that they would never say in real life.

Well, yeah. They definitely represent a subset of atheism. But that's the kind of thing that bugs me. My issue isn't with atheism, but atheists like that. I'm calling them militant or "new atheists" because that's what comes to mind when I hear that term. I wouldn't even include the things in the "sixth grader" thread "militant". Others may have a different definition. My issue isn't with atheism, but rather that particular flavor of it. I agree with atheists on 99.9999999% of all metaphysical issues, so it's not the atheism part that bugs me, but rather the immature, self-righteous expression of it.

Militant for me is a word that has a connotation not of standing up for oneself and what one believes, but rather a myopic self-righteous passion.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Well, yeah. They definitely represent a subset of atheism. But that's the kind of thing that bugs me. My issue isn't with atheism, but atheists like that. I'm calling them millitant or "new atheists" because that's what comes to mind when I hear that term. Others may have a different definition. My issue isn't with atheism, but rather that particular flavor of it. I agree with atheists on 99.9999999% of all metaphysical issues, so it's not the atheism part that bugs me, but rather the immature, self-righteous expression of it.

ugh, just call them redditors. Although I suppose that generalization is almost as unfair as calling them atheists, since there are lots of decent redditors out there....just not necessarily the majority or the most visible on there.
 
R

RDF

Guest
I think the bottom line is this: Whenever a representative of New Atheism sits down at a table to debate a representative of any religion, you’re going to have exactly the same thing on both sides of the debate table: An intellectual with a big ego who is very convinced that he is right.

It would be nice if the debate could be handled peacefully, maturely, and with mutual respect. But if one side or both sides go off and gets testy or turn manipulative, it shouldn’t be totally unexpected. It’s "the human element.”

More broadly: Religious people shouldn’t be putting unrealistic expectations on atheists. Just like religious folks, most atheists try to be good representatives for their cause. But just like religious folks, sometimes their egos get away from them.
 

SpankyMcFly

Level 8 Propaganda Bot
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,349
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
461
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Oh no, I get that. I guess I just have an issue with the "militant" label, since everyone seems to have a different definition. I have seen people using it to describe people who are not any more tactless/etc than the average human being - it just seems that many people are far more sensitive to the trait in atheists than they are in people expressing other opinions. So atheists who are tactless about their beliefs are "militant", but people who are tactless about say, parenting decisions, or politics, or whatever other controversial thing you want to discuss, are generally not labelled as militant, which doesn't make sense to me. It seems a pretty extreme word, like you're crusading for your opinions or something, and in the case of atheism, it often seems to be used to describe people who really are not behaving that radically.

Agreed. I believe the mislabeling is intentional for the most part. It marginalizes and can demonize. That people can and do so is an indicative of the lack of concern these same people have in doing so. I mean atheists have historically been on the bottom of public opinion polls for awhile. How about those Southern Baptists that picket funerals? The abortion clinic bombers? Abortion doctor murderers? They are mostly referred to as "fundamentalists".

An exchange between George W. Bush, while running as candidate for president and a reporter for an atheist periodical:

"Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

Things sure have changed :alttongue:

I think the word "activist" is more accurate, in most cases.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
"Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

Wow, that's insane. I think we're a little more accepting of atheists up here, thankfully, although we do have a few fundamentalists kicking around. I don't think anyone (well, most people) would care if we had an atheist prime minister - for all I know we've had one already. It's more "normal" here, for whatever reason.

edit: it just occurred to me that maybe that is why I don't see these kinds of behaviours in people in real life. It makes sense that a stigmatized minority group would be more hostile to the majority than a more accepted minority group.
 

SpankyMcFly

Level 8 Propaganda Bot
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,349
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
461
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Wow, that's insane. I think we're a little more accepting of atheists up here, thankfully, although we do have a few fundamentalists kicking around. I don't think anyone (well, most people) would care if we had an atheist prime minister - for all I know we've had one already. It's more "normal" here, for whatever reason.

What country are you from?

I like to apply a simple test to check for hypocrisy/political correctness. Simply replace the word atheist with any mono-theistic denomination/sub-denomination. Then ask yourself, would these same people use the word militant to describe similar activities by say Jews or Christians? I think not.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
What country are you from?
Canada. :)

My peer group makes a difference too, of course - 20s, educated (many in science), urban. Rural areas are less atheist-friendly, like in the states. Still, I can't really imagine a conversation like that happening with our PM. The "one nation under god" thing isn't really a thing here. No prayer in public schools, no creationism in public schools, gay marriage has been legal for nearly a decade with no signs of society collapsing, etc.

We also tend to be less extreme in our identification with groups in general, for whatever reason - e.g. many people change their votes from left-wing to right-wing between elections, because there aren't really massive differences between them, and we don't tend to personally identify with our political party as much. So that probably contributes to less "militant" views as well.

...Crap, I shouldn't be in this thread, should I. Oh well, I'm not the only non-American here.
 

SpankyMcFly

Level 8 Propaganda Bot
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,349
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
461
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Canada. :)

My peer group makes a difference too, of course - 20s, educated (many in science), urban. Rural areas are less atheist-friendly, like in the states. Still, I can't really imagine a conversation like that happening with our PM. The "one nation under god" thing isn't really a thing here. No prayer in public schools, no creationism in public schools, gay marriage has been legal for nearly a decade with no signs of society collapsing, etc.

I'm still waiting for the Netherlands to collapse from all that weed they smoke :D

Canada hunh? And you guys speak English! *starts craigslisting for a pad in Canada*

The "one nation under god" part is often used to justify anti atheism. Most low information people have no idea it was only added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954, during the cold war, amongst other reasons.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Canada. :)

My peer group makes a difference too, of course - 20s, educated (many in science), urban. Rural areas are less atheist-friendly, like in the states. Still, I can't really imagine a conversation like that happening with our PM. The "one nation under god" thing isn't really a thing here. No prayer in public schools, no creationism in public schools, gay marriage has been legal for nearly a decade with no signs of society collapsing, etc.

We also tend to be less extreme in our identification with groups in general, for whatever reason - e.g. many people change their votes from left-wing to right-wing between elections, because there aren't really massive differences between them, and we don't tend to personally identify with our political party as much. So that probably contributes to less "militant" views as well.

...Crap, I shouldn't be in this thread, should I. Oh well, I'm not the only non-American here.

Why generalise their specific experience to the world?

There's plenty of stable societies which dont buy into any state coercion to redefine the popular understanding of marriage and they're stable and gays are fine, why not follow their example? I dont understand why so many people hate heterosexuality and a heterosexual way of life, especially the people who are heterosexual.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I think that this is a true but one-sided observation. Some people may do this, but some Christians share their beliefs because they truly believe that they are saving you from eternal damnation. And "militant" atheists are trying to cut down on persecution stemming from religion.

The affect/emotion and unconscious motivation is what I was talking about, its more interesting than the declared rationalisations.

While evangelicals may believe they are saving people from eternal damnation, that follows from the idea of evangelism, why would militant athiests necessarily believe they are trying to cut down on persecution from religion? That's not a logical extention of what militant atheism is, although I understand why you make that mistake, a militant athiest would simply be concerned to remove belief in theism, its all atheism is objectively and substantively, its part of the reason AC Grayling has moved towards describing himself as a naturalist and humanist.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Idk, I can't but feel that anytime an atheist asserts themselves, they're "militant". Atheists are discriminated against all day, every day in America, a country which prides itself on toleration. I think it's high time we pushed back a bit.

I dont believe that's the case. Now I would believe the sense of grievance you express here was valid if you were in Afghanistan asserting yourself against the Taliban, there's a difference between popularity, social acceptance and positive persecution.

I feel this all the time when I read about the various aggrieved groups in the first world today discussing how they are oppressed.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Dismissive comments that convey a sense of superiority and unwillingness to consider other perspectives. Obviously, behavior that isn't exclusive to "militant"/"new" atheists. To be more specific, any comments along the lines of "Religion is a crutch," "Religion was only used to explain phenomena that science now fully accounts for," and "Religion is inherently bad," which reflect simplistic and extremely half-hearted attempts at understanding either a. religion as a cultural phenomena, as others have mentioned and b. agnostic/ignostic arguments.

*Edit: I'm not opposed to all of those comments themselves, but the atheists I've known have generally been terrible at backing them up or presenting them in a compassionate, non-confrontational way.

I find it disturbing that people ever come to a point in their life where they think they've figured it all out and put a guard up to new ideas. But I'm willing to accept that even this will change for me as I encounter new theories and people.

I'm still coming to grips with the fact that, on this subject, I'm in agreement with the dude who wrote "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus," but this line always comes back to me: "It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion." The article it comes from is really good.

I think John Gray is an asshat to be honest, I think that he's ripping off Mark Vernon when he says that BTW, you'd probably be really interested to read either Vernon's book on Humanism or his books on God or Love or Philosophy for that matter, each of them touches in different ways upon the conclusion about human experience mentioned in that quote there.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I tend to see religious people presenting a straw man view of atheism (for example, that atheists are supposed to present their views "in a compassionate, non-confrontational way") and then putting down atheists for not living up to that straw man view.

Why should atheists be non-confrontational? I don't think any of the New Atheists claim to be non-confrontational. Debate involves confrontation. See my comments above about the "marketplace of ideas."

A "marketplace of ideas"? Really, a bawlk at such an idea, truth and commerce go together like Jesus and Satan, its an extremely poor idea to want anything to be a marketplace but you probably have a different sense of the word altogether.

Debate doesnt necessarily involve confrontation at all, in fact I'd say that confrontation is the end of an anathema to debate proper, its when debate tips over into dispute and emoting or rationalisations stand in for any reason or regard for the truth, the struggle may strengthen convictions, firm up opinions, fashion new arguments for antagonists (Edmund Burke thought so and Jung said what anyone resists, persists, he was talking about psychological conflict, resistance to insight but I think its valid in different contexts too).

Those views have been surpassed in the sciences a long time ago, peer review has attempted to move beyond conflict and competitive models because of obstruction and obscurating effects toward dialogue and discussion instead.

I'm not saying there shouldnt be conflict or competition in life, its inevitable, although there's little to really commend it, it needs managed and minimised.
 

93JC

Active member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
3,989
There's plenty of stable societies which dont buy into any state coercion to redefine the popular understanding of marriage and they're stable and gays are fine, why not follow their example? I dont understand why so many people hate heterosexuality and a heterosexual way of life, especially the people who are heterosexual.

:rolleyes:

You need to change the record Lark, this one's broken.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
That's essentially how I feel.

As for it being a confrontation, that is inevitable, because theism and atheism are mutually exclusive views. They cannot be held at the same time. You are one or the other or you don't know (a pure agnostic). You cannot feel both are true at the same time. If this were only a cosmic matter, it would be strictly academic and there'd be no point in talking about. However, religious people often let religion influence (if not downright control) they notions of cosmology, morality, and even logic. Because of that, it is not strictly academic, but a practical social problem. Crying about the other side being confrontational can only be a self-serving trick in this case.

You know I actually believe MP that some day, if you let yourself, you'll feel really different about posts like that one. I'm still surprised you're satisfied with atheism, especially the sort you validate with posts like that one, its also incredibly curious to hear you consider that moral conduct is a practical problem, not its lack but its existence.

Although that said I think perhaps I thought similar things years ago too.
 
Top