Militant Athiesm

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I have a lot of issues with "millitant" or "new atheism". Probably even more than with religious fundamentalism (or at least, it annoys me more). I think it's because I see the idea of acting in such an evangelical dogmatic fashion while opposing religion as fundamentally absurd. It seems as though "new atheists" merely replicate many of the things I tend to find the most off-putting about some religious folks. They claim to fight against "delusions" while caring not one whit about cognitive biases or groupthink.

I'm a Spinozan pantheist, but if I don't feel like explaining that to people, I just tell them I'm an atheist (and some atheists appear to actually be pantheists). But because of the "New Atheism" thing, I always feel like qualifying it.

I also dislike that I cannot have an intellectual discussion about religion as a cultural phenomenon at all without someone shouting "WHO CARES ITS A DELUSION" and hijacking the discussion. I'd like religion to be a topic of discussion on the internet and be about something other than atheism vs. theism, which isn't the interesting to me, and if I wanted to read it, I'd just got to r/atheism.

Oh, and Christopher Hitchens sucks.

 

[Lark]

I have a lot of issues with "millitant" or "new atheism". Probably even more than with religious fundamentalism (or at least, it annoys me more). I think it's because I see the idea of acting in such an evangelical dogmatic fashion while opposing religion as fundamentally absurd. It seems as though "new atheists" merely replicate many of the things I tend to find the most off-putting about some religious folks. They claim to fight against "delusions" while caring not one whit about cognitive biases or groupthink.

I'm a Spinozan pantheist, but if I don't feel like explaining that to people, I just tell them I'm an atheist (and some atheists appear to actually be pantheists). But because of the "New Atheism" thing, I always feel like qualifying it.

I also dislike that I cannot have an intellectual discussion about religion as a cultural phenomenon at all without someone shouting "WHO CARES ITS A DELUSION" and hijacking the discussion. I'd like religion to be a topic of discussion on the internet and be about something other than atheism vs. theism, which isn't the interesting to me, and if I wanted to read it, I'd just got to r/atheism.

Oh, and Christopher Hitchens sucks.

Yeah but man you posted something shocking the other day about terminal illness.

Anyway, that aside your view is actually remarkably similar to my own, although I'm on the other side of the fence in many ways because I'm a believer. A lot of the time I try to give athiests, even the new athiests, the benefit of the doubt, its one of those things which I think can only be understood when you're given the context, I truly dislike evangelism, now I know, I know, there's room to alledge that there's some lingering bug bears about protestantism there, I'm guilty, that's true, in my country evangelists target, pretty vociferously its got to be said, RCs too, as though they were none believers. So I'll nearly prefer a dip shit documentary by Dawkins or AC Grayling saying things on Radio 4 or Philosophy Bites to the street preachers every saturday.

There's differences between them all too, I dont mind AC Grayling, the guy seems pretty harsh in print but in interviews he's not that bad, Dawkins seems like he can be bowled over when faced with a decent representative of religion instead of an eejit, Dennett I've no time for, dont like him at all, it was probably deciding that not simply God but morality, free while and character were all imaginary which did it, I think its incredibly hard to live by those beliefs or practice that, which then makes be think its purely abstraction, lacking even practical reasoning as an underpinning which makes me suspect his whole perspective is merely a rationalisation for how he feels.

The final bit you write there, about it as a cultural phenomenon, I highlighted that because I think that's kind of a big deal, the best atheists like Erich Fromm have been able to grasp that and while a superficial acquaintence with their views isnt going to satisfy the most irreligious and anti-theist, there's no mistaking it there's no belief in a deity, after life, supernatural dimension in life but there are some vital understandings of the role, past, present and future of religious traditions and beliefs.

There are "Godless Christians", "Humanistic Jews", philosophical spiritual thinkers like Mark Vernon who seem to bridge a gap between belief and non-belief or traverse the two camps. Whatever creates obsticles to discussion and dialogue isnt any good, bridges, not walls, that's what's needing to be built.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yeah but man you posted something shocking the other day about terminal illness.

That came out harsher than I intended, and I removed the sarcastic vibe that came off way nastier written down. I mean to point out that science is better for dealing with terminal illness, but the sarcasm kind of obscured that. Anyway, I didn't understand that she was making a joke.

There are "Godless Christians", "Humanistic Jews", philosophical spiritual thinkers like Mark Vernon who seem to bridge a gap between belief and non-belief or traverse the two camps. Whatever creates obsticles to discussion and dialogue isnt any good, bridges, not walls, that's what's needing to be built.

I agree with this, and recently I've been working harder at trying to understand things, rather than just assuming I already know the answers for everything. Among other things, that's an incredibly dull way to live. Ne, not just Ti.

 

[RDF]

This is kind of a tangent, but here’s a little story:

When I was growing up, it was a big hassle to admit that I was an atheist. Once I uttered the word “atheist,” every Christian within a country mile would come crowding up and start proselytizing. The proselytizing wasn’t done out of meanness; I was never the target of any hostility. The proselytizing was either done out of genuine concern for my soul or out of intellectual curiosity: “Well maybe you just haven’t heard *my* argument about why you need Christ in your life.”

Still, it was a hassle. Self-declared atheists were few and far between, and atheists were the “gold standard” for proselytizers. By contrast, agnostics were kind of sneered at by Christians as being lukewarm. But every Christian salivated for the day that they met a true-blue atheist. In church, preachers loved to say things like “If you every meet a real live atheist, here’s what you tell him...”

So I heard every possible argument in favor of conversion, and I debated them each a hundred times or more. Eventually I got tired of it; when people asked about my religious affiliations, I just said, “I don’t know, I haven’t been to church in a long time.” I just acted wishy-washy, and Christians by and large left me alone, figuring me for an agnostic or lapsed Christian. As for me, I figured it was up to the next atheist in line to carry the debate burden; I had already paid my dues.

By the late 80s and 90s, it was no longer such a big deal to use the “A” word. Wiccans and pagans and pantheists were starting to pop up, and they were getting a lot of the attention from Christians that atheists used to get. So saying that I was an atheist was less of an issue.

Now that the New Atheists have arisen, suddenly atheists are the badasses of the metaphysical/philosophical world. A Christian walks up to me, he asks about my religious affiliation, I say I’m an atheist, and the Christian runs away from me screaming, apparently afraid that I’m going to start proselytizing.

I love it. That’s all I ever wanted from Christians: To be left alone and not have to hear about their faith. If it means them running away screaming, that’s fine with me.

And if the so-called New Atheists are the cause of this new attitude, then I applaud those New Atheists and say, “God bless their heathen asses!”

 

[Randomnity]

I think it becomes "militant" when you start trying to convert people to your side. Of course, it's a matter for debate whether having no side is quite equivalent to having a particular side. Going with a military analogy, is telling both sides that they're wrong to fight quite the same as supporting either side?

Alternatively, people might say "militant" to denote a very confrontational attitude, bringing it up constantly, attending protests, etc. That definition makes sense to me too, actually. So, it would be militant if disproving religion seems to be the focus of your life, but not militant to criticize religion (even harshly) in an appropriate setting, like here, or discussing with friends, or a debate, or a book, or whatever.

I think people's definitions will probably depend on the context in which they've heard it used before.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

When was the last time a militant atheist knocked on your door and asked to discuss atheism with you? Or stood along the street with their ¨literature¨ asking you if you´ve heard the word? I do not think these kinds of activities are militant per se, but certainly are very organized. I´m going to go out on a limb here and say if militant atheists did this it would cause quite a ruckus. Why aren´t groups like these also labeled militant?

On a personal note, I label myself an atheist and frankly I really don´t care about what other people believe or don´t believe in, insofar as it does not affect me, live and let live, be happy and all that. Therein lies the rub. As I read and hear about public policy and political discussions, religion and religious belief are often the basis for peoples values & perspectives i.e. using drugs like marijuana is ¨immoral¨, capital punishment is ¨an eye for an eye¨, teaching intelligent design (repackaged creationism) in public school (which actually passed then was overturned in Kansas), the majority of the home schooling movement in the U.S., abortion and birth control pills, condoms, sex education in school, etc.

I really wanna just be left alone, but if you insist on projecting your religious based values into public policy, indirectly affecting me, I feel the need to stand up and be heard.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

When was the last time a militant atheist knocked on your door and asked to discuss atheism with you? Or stood along the street with their ¨literature¨ asking you if you´ve heard the word?

I have made jokes implying that trolls and leprechauns are real, and gotten weird self-righteous responses like "I believe in SCIENCE, I only accept things that are REAL." This has happened to me at least once.

In my social circles, I usually run up more against militant atheism than militant Christianity. I suppose Christian fundamentalism is more of a political problem, but in my day-to-day life, militant atheism is something I have tended to encounter more. Adding to my annoyance is that I feel that militant atheism shouldn't even exist. Why does atheism need to "balance out" fundamentalists?

I'd also like to be able to acknowledge that religion exists as a cultural phenomenon without it always turning into the same stupid atheism vs. theism debate.

 

[93JC]

"-isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself."

 

[RDF]

[...] I feel that militant atheism shouldn't even exist. Why does atheism need to "balance out" fundamentalists?

I'd also like to be able to acknowledge that religion exists as a cultural phenomenon without it always turning into the same stupid atheism vs. theism debate.

Those are your rules, not mine.

I figure “marketplace-of-ideas” rules apply here. There’s no great injury being done to anyone here; no one is being left dead on the side of the road. It’s just an inconvenience for one side or the other. At worst, you have to put up with the occasional atheist troll on a message board or in your social circles. If you don’t like it, there are easy remedies: find a moderated message board for religious people and choose your friends from your Sunday School class.

In the US, at least, it’s “marketplace-of-ideas” rules: We mix it up, and we accept that not everyone is going to agree with us. As I see it, the bottom line is that you just don’t like the fact that there are some new players in town.

 

[TheStarchDefenders]

When was the last time a militant atheist knocked on your door and asked to discuss atheism with you? Or stood along the street with their ¨literature¨ asking you if you´ve heard the word? I do not think these kinds of activities are militant per se, but certainly are very organized. I´m going to go out on a limb here and say if militant atheists did this it would cause quite a ruckus. Why aren´t groups like these also labeled militant?

On a personal note, I label myself an atheist and frankly I really don´t care about what other people believe or don´t believe in, insofar as it does not affect me, live and let live, be happy and all that. Therein lies the rub. As I read and hear about public policy and political discussions, religion and religious belief are often the basis for peoples values & perspectives i.e. using drugs like marijuana is ¨immoral¨, capital punishment is ¨an eye for an eye¨, teaching intelligent design (repackaged creationism) in public school (which actually passed then was overturned in Kansas), the majority of the home schooling movement in the U.S., abortion and birth control pills, condoms, sex education in school, etc.

I really wanna just be left alone, but if you insist on projecting your religious based values into public policy, indirectly affecting me, I feel the need to stand up and be heard.

+1

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In the US, at least, it’s “marketplace-of-ideas” rules: We mix it up, and we accept that not everyone is going to agree with us. As I see it, the bottom line is that you just don’t like the fact that there are some new players in town.

And the new players are shaping up to be as obnoxious as the old players. They aren't there, yet, but perhaps they will be. Um, yay?

You don't appear to have read any of my previous posts about what my actual beliefs are, but you're content to make assumptions about them and dismiss them accordingly. Yet somehow, new atheism represents a triumph of logic and reason?

I'm not so optimistic. I think the problems with fundamentalism actually exist within human psyhology on a level deeper than religion. In the Soviet Union, they got rid of religion, but people just started worshipping Lenin and Marx and treating Das Kapital as the Bible. They may have not believed in a supreme being, but that didn't stop dogmatism and groupthink.

I value open discussion and people thinking for themselves, but I don't think New Atheism is the way to go, unfortunately. It's more like people changing which set of ideas they adopt uncritically than a genuine pro-rationalism/empiricism movement.

 

[Randomnity]

I hear a lot of talk in this thread about how mean "militant" and "new" atheists are but not about the specific behaviours that are troubling, or what makes someone "militant" (as in, the actual question brought up by the OP).

As someone who is atheist with a social circle that is almost entirely atheist as well, I would like to hear more about what atheist behaviours people are finding problematic (preferably in real life - trolls on the internet don't count, as they exist for every group imaginable). I expect that it goes beyond simply being open about not believing in a god, and being willing to elaborate on why in an appropriate context.

 

[RDF]

And the new players are shaping up to be as obnoxious as the old players. They aren't there, yet, but perhaps they will be. Um, yay?

You don't appear to have read any of my previous posts about what my actual beliefs are, but you're content to make assumptions about them and dismiss them accordingly. Yet somehow, new atheism represents a triumph of logic and reason?

I'm not so optimistic. I think the problems with fundamentalism actually exist within human psyhology on a level deeper than religion. In the Soviet Union, they got rid of religion, but people just started worshipping Lenin and Marx and treating Das Kapital as the Bible. They may have not believed in a supreme being, but that didn't stop dogmatism and groupthink.

I value open discussion and people thinking for themselves, but I don't think New Atheism is the way to go, unfortunately. It's more like people changing which set of ideas they adopt uncritically than a genuine pro-rationalism/empiricism movement.

One of the key concepts of the “marketplace of ideas” is that proponents of differing views take an adversarial stance and duke it out. It means scrapping, feuding, and wrangling. It means getting one’s hands dirty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas

Formal atheism has been largely absent from the marketplace of ideas for several decades. Now that some proponents of atheism have sprung up and are willing to scrap, I fully expect them to be as adversarial and scrappy as their opponents.

Another key concept of the “marketplace of ideas” is that there are lots of different ideas contending and vying for attention. If you don’t like New Atheism, then follow some other idea. Personally I don’t care whether you like New Atheism or don’t like it.

New Atheism is just there in the marketplace, scrapping and vying for attention like all the rest. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. Pay it no heed. Or better yet, get involved and scrap directly with its proponents yourself.

But personally I don’t care what you do or how you feel about it. I’m basically just happy to see some scientists showing up, getting in the ring, and trading punches with the established religious figures. It’s a nice change from the passive posture most atheists have assumed up till now.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I hear a lot of talk in this thread about how mean "militant" and "new" atheists are but not about the specific behaviours that are troubling, or what makes someone "militant" (as in, the actual question brought up by the OP).

As someone who is atheist with a social circle that is almost entirely atheist as well, I would like to hear more about what atheist behaviours people are finding problematic (preferably in real life - trolls on the internet don't count, as they exist for every group imaginable). I expect that it goes beyond simply being open about not believing in a god, and being willing to elaborate on why in an appropriate context.

I'll bite. You're correct, for me it's more than simply being open about atheism. It's a specific rigid, humorless, self-righteous approach that appears to be incapable of recognizing that believers are not monolithic. One example would be attacking non-fundamentalist Christians for being "inconsistent" and "picking and choosing", a behavior which will probably not accomplish anything other than pushing people into fundamentalism. Another one would be just flipping out every time religion (or even things that no one actually believes in, like leprechauns) is even mentioned, which has happened in real life.

I know you wanted real-life examples, but I think a good place to witness many of the things I find so obnoxious and off-putting would be the atheism subreddit.

 

[Chiharu]

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.

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.

 

[Chiharu]

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.

 

[Randomnity]

I'll bite. You're correct, for me it's more than simply being open about atheism. It's a specific rigid, humorless, self-righteous approach that appears to be incapable of recognizing that believers are not monolithic.

Ok, I don't know any real-life atheists who are like that...

One example would be attacking non-fundamentalist Christians for being "inconsistent" and "picking and choosing", a behavior which will probably not accomplish anything other than pushing people into fundamentalism.

Here I think a lot depends on the context. In a discussion about religion, I don't think it's unfair to point out that by definition, non-fundamentalism involves choosing an interpretation of the religious texts that make sense to you (so essentially yes, "picking and choosing", although that isn't the most accurate way to phrase it). I also don't think it's unfair to discuss why some sections of religious texts are ignored while others are upheld, and whether it's a good idea for people to accept the interpretations of their religious leaders rather than forming their own ideas about the texts' meanings.

On the other hand, it's not really cool to start judging someone for this once you learn they are Christian, without asking them about what they actually believe. So I guess context, as well as attacking behaviours rather than people, makes the important difference here. I think tone is important as well, although a lot of (particularly young) atheists are oblivious to the emotional importance that religion has for many people, and therefore neglect to approach the subject with the sensitivity that some religious people need in order for a rational rather than emotional discussion to occur.

Another one would be just flipping out every time religion (or even things that no one actually believes in, like leprechauns) is even mentioned, which has happened in real life.

Can't say anything about this one since I don't know what you mean by "flipping out". If it's "having an emotional/angry reaction", I've never seen anyone do this in real life. If it's stating their opinion in response ("I believe in science and things that are real"), I don't really see the issue. If it's ok for one person to mention that they think elves exist, surely it's ok for someone to reply that they don't. A lot here is dependent on tone, I suspect. A lot of people in the world are not very good at expressing disagreement without hostility (intentional or not), and this applies to theists as well as atheists, and to many people on the forum (including me, at times). In other words, I would say it's more of a human nature problem, particularly in young people, rather than a "militant atheism" problem.

I know you wanted real-life examples, but I think a good place to witness many of the things I find so obnoxious and off-putting would be the atheism subreddit.

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.

I think it's monstrously unfair to associate any subreddit with the larger population of people associated with the thing the subreddit is discussing. From the subreddits I do participate in, I know that the reddit population is far from representative of the overall population - sometimes positively, sometimes negatively.

 

[mintleaf]

I hear a lot of talk in this thread about how mean "militant" and "new" atheists are but not about the specific behaviours that are troubling, or what makes someone "militant" (as in, the actual question brought up by the OP).

As someone who is atheist with a social circle that is almost entirely atheist as well, I would like to hear more about what atheist behaviours people are finding problematic (preferably in real life - trolls on the internet don't count, as they exist for every group imaginable). I expect that it goes beyond simply being open about not believing in a god, and being willing to elaborate on why in an appropriate context.

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.

 

[RDF]

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 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."

 

[Magic Poriferan]

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.

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 it. However, religious people often let religion influence (if not downright control) their 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.