Militant Athiesm

[citizen cane]

What is it? What makes it 'militant', as opposed to 'evangelical' or some more neutral word, such as are afforded to various religions which have at least equal influence? There are probably tens of questions that ought to be discussed in this thread, but I think this ought to get the ball rolling.

 

[Beorn]

I hear new atheism more often then militant atheism. But, it's the claims that religion is immoral and the perception that the new atheists engage in discrimination that leads opponents to refer to them as militant. There's even the idea that they mirror fundamentalism.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism#Criticisms

 

[Rasofy]

 

[Rasofy]

There's an understanding that atheists aren't supposed to preach, as that would make them ironically similar to what they are opposing to (theism/religion).

Hence, in a certain light, it makes sense to use the term 'militant' for the deviants.

 

[Lark]

What is it? What makes it 'militant', as opposed to 'evangelical' or some more neutral word, such as are afforded to various religions which have at least equal influence? There are probably tens of questions that ought to be discussed in this thread, but I think this ought to get the ball rolling.

Dude, really?

You consider evangelical neutral and militant prejorative? I think they're sort of synomynous in my mind, although evangelism is anything but neutral and probably bothers me much, much more than militancy among athiests, there's militancy among any and all sorts of opinions, I actually associate the word with commies and trots(skyists) because of the history of the so called "militant tendency" in UK politics (arguably the UK Labour party excised their militant tendency like it was a cancer, while the UK conservatives were taken over by theirs).

 

[Lark]

Cartoon courtesy of a militant liberal-secular-probably athiest propagandist.

Sort of thing that circulates I guess, if you're satisfied with that I suppose its grand, I wouldnt be and I've always been interested in something with more depth, less of the superficial impressions.

 

[Lark]

I hear new atheism more often then militant atheism. But, it's the claims that religion is immoral and the perception that the new atheists engage in discrimination that leads opponents to refer to them as militant. There's even the idea that they mirror fundamentalism.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism#Criticisms

I think in many ways they do, they are a channel for certain perrenial personalities I would say, a lot of the people who I see drawn to the new athiesm remind me of the old marxoids or, ironically maybe, libertarian capitalists. They're looking for a key to open all locks and are pretty lazy intellectually really.

Peguy's vid with Dawkin's and the priest is a good example of how well matched some of the new athiests and old christian literalists are, Dawkin's questions and prep for the discussion gave a clear indication that that was what he was expecting and what he encountered differed a lot from that. I've seen something broadly similar to this in "forum life" or online interaction, people who get a kick out of being smart or proving themselves savy and effacious, particularly in dicussions, more often disputes, hunt out someone or some group which is going to be an easy target, vulnerable enough to supply their needs.

Personally I dont like militancy because I was pretty militant in my views when I was a teenager and I knew shit back then, when I perceive it in others it reminds me of myself or something about myself, Jung's whole shadow deal. I only very gradually broke with that and to be honest with the passage of time and perspective I feel the content of my beliefs at the time mattered less than my age and stage of development, context and personality/character traits.

There's a secret every militant doesnt want you to know and that's that they are overcompensating for private doubts.

 

[Rasofy]

Cartoon courtesy of a militant liberal-secular-probably athiest propagandist.

Sort of thing that circulates I guess, if you're satisfied with that I suppose its grand, I wouldnt be and I've always been interested in something with more depth, less of the superficial impressions.

It's just humor, meant to play with the notion that atheists are 'evil'. If you want depth, buy a Dawkins book.

 

[Lark]

It's just humor, meant to play with the notion that atheists are 'evil'. If you want depth, buy a Dawkins book.

Read that back, I'm sure you can see the error the same as me.

 

[Cellmold]

This thread is so militant.

I'm sure someone was predicting someone would say this, I was too, so I decided to be that person.

 

[Lark]

This thread is so militant.

I'm sure someone was predicting someone would say this, I was too, so I decided to be that person.

 

[RDF]

What is it? What makes it 'militant', as opposed to 'evangelical' or some more neutral word, such as are afforded to various religions which have at least equal influence? There are probably tens of questions that ought to be discussed in this thread, but I think this ought to get the ball rolling.

As an atheist myself, I have no problem with “militant atheism.” It’s understood that atheists aren’t shooting people in the streets or anything. However, there has definitely been a big change in how atheism is being promulgated; a “mobilization” of sorts. So I don’t see “militant” as so far off the mark.

Going back in time a bit:

As I perceived it, old-style atheism thought of itself as high-minded, in the sense that it would have seemed mean-spirited to go to war against religion. It would have been like warring against teddy bears, fairy tales, and pacifiers. “Religion is the opiate of the masses,” and all that. If people want their big fuzzy teddy bear in the sky, then what’s the harm?

When needed, there were a few high-profile atheists in the U.S. like Madalyn Murray O’Hair to sue to remove prayer from school or close down Christmas displays on city hall grounds. And the courts were generally sympathetic. Beyond that, there really didn’t seem to be a need for rallies and high-profile movements for atheism.

I guess “New Atheism” grew out of 9/11 and a perception that religious wars are getting a little too close to home. So the New Atheism movement has been trying to actively “proselytize” against religion in general. God’s followers have gotten more dangerous, so it’s time for atheists to “mobilize” in response, I guess.

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). On the other hand, when I visit the websites of the New Atheists I see posts from the same kinds of zealots and bullies as in every other camp, whether it be the camps of evangelicals, pro-choicers, pro-lifers, Democrats, Republicans, etc. So I’m not tempted to join them myself.

But I wish the New Atheists well. I don’t feel the same personal urgency as them to go to war against religion. But I also see nothing wrong with scientists getting together, hammering out some actual party platforms on behalf of atheism, and putting them out in the marketplace of ideas like any other group.

 

[WALMART]

Just a term spawned from the fact that purveying atheism undermines what agnostic thought should be about.

 

[Lark]

Do you think it'd be possible to market a game of all the things that Link does when he's not adventuring to save the princess?

 

[Typh0n]

There's an understanding that atheists aren't supposed to preach, as that would make them ironically similar to what they are opposing to (theism/religion).

Hence, in a certain light, it makes sense to use the term 'militant' for the deviants.

I dont know I've met hardcore atheists in my day that are just as preachy as Christians.

 

[Lark]

I think the sorts of people who try to spread their personal views and opinions, whether they are theist or atheist, are usually of a curious sort of person who is insecure in their opinion and need others to share it in order to confirm it as true to themselves.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I'm an agnostic and have spent years debating between theism and atheism from both sides. There are militant atheists who are quite dismissive in an unfair manner towards religious and spiritual people. I can understand when people debate strongly in the realm of ideas, but when there is a rejection of another human as being less because of thinking differently, then it has crossed a line.

When a person believes that society would be better off rejecting religion, I would ask what is the benefit of a "better society"? Is it so that people can live more fulfilling lives? Is it motivated by caring for other people? If that is the case, then how does caring for other people in general affect debate?

I think there are many extremely unhealthy forms of religion, but each individual is the result of their experience and nature. Even the most confused person in an extremist religion is not inferior to me in any way. I would be them and they would be me if we traded lives. It is important to have compassion and respect for others and to take the time to understand how they arrived at the place they are. I would think that is also an important part of objective knowledge.

 

[prplchknz]

don't preach about your beliefs to me and I'll do the same for you. eff militant anything, it's terrible.

 

[Lark]

Just in relation to this, I'm not evangelical but I would be militant about my own beliefs, I'm not that bothered about what others think or believe contra distinction to what I do, until they decide to tool up, give their thoughts and beliefs the force of law, generalise them to others who do not profess the same thinking etc.

I wouldnt seek to compell anyone to believe that I believe and I think its counter productive to believe that's even possible, if I myself by example or force of persuasion cant convince or provide compelling evidence for the way of life and beliefs I profess then that's about as far as that goes. That I'm prepared to personally sacrifice all for my beliefs. They are the only thing that I think its possible to possess at the end of the day and which cant be taken away from you.

 

[Blackmail!]

That I'm prepared to personally sacrifice all for my beliefs. They are the only thing that I think its possible to possess at the end of the day and which cant be taken away from you.

Fine.

What kind of sacrifice did you already make?

And are you aware that your speech here is no different than the one of a fanatic? I'm sure the guys who crashed their planes into the WTC thought more or less the same...