Militant Athiesm

[Chiharu]

I'd not say "nearly every religion" I'd say every religion, there's no need to qualify it, because people are involved and people arent perfect, perfect religions or ideas, if there are such things arent going to fix that. And more often these things are channels than fixes anyway.

Those are not simply weak arguments they're just plain wrong, its sort of what I've been trying to say about being a channel for other things, people who oppress or persecute do for deeper reasons than anything in religion or ideology. Considering religion the root of all evil is simple, I'm sure if evil could be as easily identified and dealt with as all that it'd have disappeared long ago. Its as stupid as any believer who'd think that non-belief is the root of all evil. What's meant by either and the actions which result is another question, I dont accept what you said about Christians persecuting a particular population there BTW, I think the issues surrounding that are much deeper and broader than religion but I dont think you're ready for that. The world isnt ready.

Well I can't think of, say, violent persecution occurring at the hands of Jainists. I qualify things because I don't know everything, and even very accurate generalizations are still generalizations.

And I'm not justifying the arguments or atheists or theists in that regard. But the logic and correctness of their beliefs doesn't matter. If they believe it, no matter how dumb it seems, and that belief motivates them, then in their own minds they are doing the right thing. That was my point.

People are just dumb sometimes, and you can't force them to change. A lot of very stupid people have a lot of very good intentions and very strong convictions and then they fight for a very long time and life sucks very much until you are very dead. #yolo

 

[Idealatious]

I agree with someone who said that you could be labeled as a "militant atheistic" if you aggressively try to convert people (particularly if you weren't even in a critical debate setting at the time). I don't think it's necessary to refine the phrase militant atheism, because obviously, it was not created in reference to an actual military. Words have different meanings, particularly if we use them to build phrases that have their own new meanings. I wouldn't mind language evolving to call "militant atheists" by another term, but that doesn't mean the term doesn't exist.

I do agree that most people should not aggressively try to convert or de-convert people (unless the other person asks you to try!). I mean, their religion or lack there of is their business. And I can understand wanting to convert people... thinking their beliefs are harmful, or what have you. I can empathize with the urgency of conversion that religious beliefs can make you feel - I mean, that person's going to go to hell if you don't convert them?? It's your god-given mission to save them, obviously!! As awful as that way of thought is (motivation = fear) and as much as I hate attempts to convert anyone... I can understand it making someone religious want to convert everyone.

But some atheists are just so aggressive without any "good" (imo) reason. Like, do you think X will be, I don't know, wallowing in stupidity if you don't deconvert them? Okay, well... that's X's right. If you actually believe that an individual's religious belief directly causes harm, then... maybe. But that seems like a shaky argument. How would one Christian person be individually harming someone? (JUST the Christianity religion, not any beliefs that are perhaps related to Christianity but don't necessarily and always come with it) Now, arguing that societal religious belief causes harm is different - systemic effects of religion that are arguably very real and harmful. But that doesn't mean that you need to shout in that religious person's face and keep making snarky comments about how dumb and brainwashed they are.

Besides, there are psychological benefits to religious belief that a lot of psychologists have historically overlooked... and I would hate to deprive anyone of their own happiness/mental stability/whatever gets them through life as long as they aren't hurting anyone else! Some loud/aggressive/militant atheists just annoy me because they aren't helping anyone... but loud/aggressive/militant religious people annoy me too, so whatever.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Apatheism or apathic agnosticism is the future.

Atheism is just another theistic belief that is an oxymoron in itself.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Atheism is just another theistic belief that is an oxymoron in itself.

The difference is an atheist would be willing to change their mind given enough evidence. I can´t say the same for theists.

They are somewhat similar though on where they stand on a 7-point Likert scale, which is to say, opposite ends. However I do not know of, nor have I read-heard of any ¨absolute¨ atheists. A 1 on the Likert. The atheists that appear as 1´s are interpreting the question to mean human gods vs. a prime-mover. There is an abundance of 7s though on the opposite end however.

If you care to search you will find that the ¨militant¨ atheists: Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet & Harris will tell you themselves that they are not 100% sure there is no prime mover.

FTR I consider myself a 2. There could be a god or gods out there, but I am not convinced based on the evidence. If there is one, I don´t think it´s one us humans have conceptualized.

 

[RDF]

Apatheism or apathic agnosticism is the future.


Atheism is just another theistic belief that is an oxymoron in itself.

I don't believe in supreme beings and an afterlife in exactly the same way that I don't believe in the tooth fairy and leprechauns. Some people tell me that atheism is a "belief system." I say: Fine, whatever. But then I guess that not believing in the tooth fairy and leprechauns is a "belief system" too.

I simply was raised without any religious instruction at all. Then, in my twenties I dabbled with religion, read the Bible, went to church, prayed a little bit, etc. It was new to me, and I wanted to give it a fair tryout. But it was creepy. All of a sudden I was supposed to believe that there was a giant eye in the sky recording all my deeds and thoughts in order to hold them against me when I died. Very creepy. Very oppressive.

So I put down the religious stuff and went back to my comfortable non-belief. Good riddance to the eye in the sky. I put the eye in the sky back in the closet with the fairies and leprechauns.

 

[zago]

I figure, how could there not be a god? God is everything around us and us ourselves. Utterly huge, complex, and intelligent beyond all comprehension. Just 'cause that doesn't make you feel "spiritual" doesn't make it any less obvious. If people are trying to look for some dude in the sky who they can talk to, well... I guess I'm not surprised they think there's no god. They're just too disappointed with the former, they're like, "but it isn't what I think it should be! I can't grasp it! I should be able to grasp it! If I can't grasp it, I'll just say it isn't real!"

What else would an omniscient god be but the entire universe? By definition, if something is omniscient, there can be no separation between it and anything else because that would make it not omniscient. God's the universe. Disappointing, I know, that you can't have an invisible best friend who is just like you but all powerful and tells you whatever you want to know and does you little favors when you ask really hard. Then again, you are a part of and you are all of god. Weird, isn't it? I don't understand it myself. Maybe one day.

Militant atheists are just angry at the stupid bullshit that is organized religion, and they are under the delusion that they can use the exact same kind of bullshit to cure the bullshit. "Everyone must know the truth as I see it. Everyone must behave like I think they should. The new sin is to believe in god!"

I feel bad for a guy like Richard Dawkins. He seems so frustrated with humanity, but it's like it is his own fault. All he needs to do is just let go and forget about the religious instead of actively seeking them out and repeatedly running himself into a brick wall trying to argue with them. Meanwhile those of us who don't care so much never really see these "crazy fundamentalists" too much, and when we do, we just leave them alone and forget about them, and things are fine. It's not pleasant to have the weight of the world on one's shoulders - especially the more you realize that your efforts to change it are always just met with resistance. Fuck militant atheism. If those guys really wanted to have an effect, they'd stfu about god and live the godless life that they claim is so great. Oh yeah, they have nothing without god. How ironic. Richard Dawkins would be a nobody to 99% of us without god. Tsk.

 

[WALMART]

I've grown to where it pains me to read of some subjects, but today I decided to crack open Dawkins' The God Delusion. He pretty much destroys the concept of militant atheism. Good read, around page 70 or so.

 

[Mole]

It was the religious attack on the Twin Towers in New York that brought religion into sharp relief.

We saw that Christianity had made its peace with the Enlightenment, Buddhism is also at peace with the Enlightenment, and Hinduism is at peace with the Enlightenment, and Chinese confucianism is at peace with half of the Enlightenment.

However Islam has rejected the Enlightenment. The proof is that 57 Islamic nations have openly and publicly rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in favour of Sharia.

And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the values of the Enlightenment.

But worse, there is a militant wing of Islam that valourises religious violence for political purposes.

And so the violent religious attack on our values has brought a coherent, scholarly response from atheism.

 

[RDF]

[...] Fuck militant atheism. If those guys really wanted to have an effect, they'd stfu about god and live the godless life that they claim is so great. [...]

The answer is what Victor said here:

[...]And so the violent religious attack on our values has brought a coherent, scholarly response from atheism.[...]

To put it another way: If the kids are playing peacefully, then fine, there’s no reason to get in their face. But when the kids start flinging feces and breaking windows, then sooner or later the adults have a responsibility to yell at them and tell them to grow the fuck up.

[...] God's the universe. [...]

Sometimes a universe is just a universe.

 

[zago]

To put it another way: If the kids are playing peacefully, then fine, there’s no reason to get in their face. But when the kids start flinging feces and breaking windows, then sooner or later the adults have a responsibility to yell at them and tell them to grow the fuck up.

'Fraid that doesn't really make sense. So all religion is bad 'cause some morons did 9/11? Militant atheists are like "THIS IS WHAT RELIGION BRINGS." Uh, not really. Am I supposed to be impressed that 0.000000000000000001% of all religious people have committed a violent act in the name of religion which they probably would have done anyway because they are crazy in the first place? And ignore the good done in the name of religion, too? Riiiiiight, I'll get right on that. 'Cause I'm just that wise and morally superior.. someone make me the atheist Pope - I can filter EVERYTHING necessary to make religion look fucking terrible.

Sometimes a universe is just a universe.

Yeah but to me, the universe is so awesome I call it god sometimes. Literally, I used it in conversation today. People know what you mean. God, or the universe, is "something bigger" than us. We often use it when speaking about things that are beyond our control. It's kind of a beautiful thing to remember and take into account.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I don't believe in supreme beings and an afterlife in exactly the same way that I don't believe in the tooth fairy and leprechauns. Some people tell me that atheism is a "belief system." I say: Fine, whatever. But then I guess that not believing in the tooth fairy and leprechauns is a "belief system" too.

I simply was raised without any religious instruction at all. Then, in my twenties I dabbled with religion, read the Bible, went to church, prayed a little bit, etc. It was new to me, and I wanted to give it a fair tryout. But it was creepy. All of a sudden I was supposed to believe that there was a giant eye in the sky recording all my deeds and thoughts in order to hold them against me when I died. Very creepy. Very oppressive.

So I put down the religious stuff and went back to my comfortable non-belief. Good riddance to the eye in the sky. I put the eye in the sky back in the closet with the fairies and leprechauns.

The difference between atheists and apatheists isn't in what you do or don't believe in. The difference is wether or not the question or issue hold any significance to you.

To an atheist who doesn't believe in a God or afterlife, this belief (or non-belief, however you like to view it) is in one way or another of importance to them. It is important to an atheist that they do not believe in religion.

To an apatheist, it doesn't matter wether or not there is or is no God. Either way the question can't be proven and debate towards this end is futile and pointless. Apatheists are indifferent and are closest to the term 'non-believers'.

Your own stance is almost closer to apatheism than it is to atheism. Although from the fact that you decidedly closeted your beliefs does at least insinuate that the choice of not believing anymore empowers you in some form so you still lean towards the atheism side of that spectrum.

 

[Randomnity]

The difference between atheists and apatheists isn't in what you do or don't believe in. The difference is wether or not the question or issue hold any significance to you.

To an atheist who doesn't believe in a God or afterlife, this belief (or non-belief, however you like to view it) is in one way or another of importance to them. It is important to an atheist that they do not believe in religion.

To an apatheist, it doesn't matter wether or not there is or is no God. Either way the question can't be proven and debate towards this end is futile and pointless. Apatheists are indifferent and are closest to the term 'non-believers'.

Your own stance is almost closer to apatheism than it is to atheism. Although from the fact that you decidedly closeted your beliefs does at least insinuate that the choice of not believing anymore empowers you in some form so you still lean towards the atheism side of that spectrum.

It doesn't matter whether or not there is a god, until he/she/it starts doing something interesting.

What does matter is all the people who feel compelled by their belief of god to do nasty things. Then you have the problem of deciding which is more important: tolerance for others' beliefs or standing up for the people harmed by those beliefs. Ideally both can be accommodated, but often it's the religious people who reject that idea, and want the laws to be determined by their own religious moral codes.

You can be indifferent to the possibility of god, while not being indifferent about the actions of (some) religious people.

 

[RDF]

The difference between atheists and apatheists isn't in what you do or don't believe in. The difference is wether or not the question or issue hold any significance to you.

To an atheist who doesn't believe in a God or afterlife, this belief (or non-belief, however you like to view it) is in one way or another of importance to them. It is important to an atheist that they do not believe in religion.

To an apatheist, it doesn't matter wether or not there is or is no God. Either way the question can't be proven and debate towards this end is futile and pointless. Apatheists are indifferent and are closest to the term 'non-believers'.

Your own stance is almost closer to apatheism than it is to atheism. Although from the fact that you decidedly closeted your beliefs does at least insinuate that the choice of not believing anymore empowers you in some form so you still lean towards the atheism side of that spectrum.

Interesting distinction. I looked up both terms in Wikipedia to pin down the distinction further.

There was a period in my twenties when I cared very much about finding out conclusively whether or not God existed. For a young INFP, it wasn’t the kind of problem that one could simply ignore. I already mentioned that I dabbled in Christianity in my twenties; in fact I read a number of the world’s “holy books,” I checked out transcendental meditation, etc. I also read a lot of history, anthropology, and psych books trying to pin down why religion would be so attractive to so many people if in fact God didn’t exist.

Eventually I pinned it down to my satisfaction: God was the stuff of fairies and leprechauns. So I suppose at that point I was an atheist by your definition: I didn’t believe, but the distinction was important to me and I had to have an answer.

Now it’s 30 years later, and I’m indifferent about the issue. The non-existence of God has been such a constant for me for so long, that it now seems utterly silly to think any other way. So I suppose I’m an apatheist in my manner of non-belief by now.

Aside from that, my attitude toward religion these days is as Randomnity pointed out: When I notice religion at all, it’s mostly in reaction to believers and their impact on my life (directly or indirectly), as opposed to reflecting the nature of my own non-belief. In other words, no matter what the nature of my own non-belief, one still has to deal with the believers and their inanities.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Apatheism or apathic agnosticism is the future.

Atheism is just another theistic belief that is an oxymoron in itself.

Apatheism for the win.

I say: Fine, whatever. But then I guess that not believing in the tooth fairy and leprechauns is a "belief system" too.

It is. The fact that something is a belief has no bearing on whether or not it is true or false.

I've grown to where it pains me to read of some subjects, but today I decided to crack open Dawkins' The God Delusion. He pretty much destroys the concept of militant atheism. Good read, around page 70 or so.

So you'd say The God Delusion is like your bible?

 

[WALMART]

So you'd say The God Delusion is like your bible?

A source of thought, one among many.

 

[Idealatious]

Atheism is just another theistic belief that is an oxymoron in itself.

Most atheists are agnostic atheists, though... they think there is no God, but they recognize that there *might* be a God. I'm not sure why that's an oxymoron? It just means you have an opinion while recognizing that reality is unknown.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be associated with the word like "apathy!" I can care about all sorts of things, meaningless, irrelevant to my life, or not. Looking at the Wikipedia page, I don't think I'd be apatheist. It's not that important to me that there isn't a god, but if someone proved that god did exist, my behavior might change; I admit. It depends on what kind of god...

 

[zago]

The very fact that you go about the trouble to call and proclaim yourself as an apatheist is probably more than a little ironic.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The very fact that you go about the trouble to call and proclaim yourself as an apatheist is probably more than a little ironic.

I don't care.

 

[Fluffywolf]

The very fact that you go about the trouble to call and proclaim yourself as an apatheist is probably more than a little ironic.

It would be ironic if I was argueing with other peoples beliefs in this topic or stating who I think is right or wrong. I truly don't care who is right and who is wrong and I recognize it is futile to argue. So far all I've done is state my own stance on this and explain what my stance meant.

Also, just because this topic is of no concern whatsoever to me, it clearly does to some of the people on this forum and just because I am apathetic towards the subject, doesn't mean I am also apathetic to the people that post in this topic.

I've only proclaimed my stance and explained my stance. I've not argued with anyone elses believes nor do I intend to.



So allow me to refute your call of irony.

 

[Society]

How do I feel about it? It’s kind of nice to see atheism doing a little push-back against religion (above and beyond the occasional court case).

weird, it is precisely because i am an atheist (or teapot agnostic, close enough) that my reaction to militant atheism is pretty much covered in those infamous lines:

(targeted at militant atheists - the 4 horseman in particular)

i mean, seriously, the whole principle of non-theism is that WE DON'T WANT TO PLAY THE GAME. going in and making non theism into a side... wtf dawkins? WTF?