Militant Atheism: Religion Or Political Affiliation?

[Jose Fly]

Oh, so you think it's a personal problem?

Yeah, pretty much. I explained why.

I don't see it as personal I see it as political. Now, I'm apolitical so other than observing and sometimes commentating I don't care about politics. If you think about it, remove the believer vs. atheist and it's just political affiliation. God, the Bible, science, evolution all that bull**** has nothing to do with it. It's a world view.

Um.......sure.

 

[ChristineM]

That doesn't make any sense tome, but whatever floats your boat, 911.

It makes precisely as much sense as your nonesens

 

[ChristineM]

Wah! Wah! Wah!

None of you have anything to say.

why are you so hateful?

 

[Revoltingest]

I begin to understand the thread.
He dislikes militant atheists.
So.....is there anything to discuss?

 

[Jose Fly]

I begin to understand the thread.
He dislikes militant atheists.
So.....is there anything to discuss?

Exactly. This thread is "Earthling is annoyed and irritated by outspoken atheists". Um.......

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly. This thread is "Earthling is annoyed and irritated by outspoken atheists".

Aren't we all.

 

[Jose Fly]

Aren't we all.

We could start another thread....."I'm annoyed and irritated by outspoken people, no matter who they are".

 

[John53]

why are you so hateful?

He's being militant...

 

[Nakosis]

Not really. He has at times been really quite aggressive and confrontational in some of his attacks on religion, though he has calmed down as he has got older.

Aggressive and confrontational is kind of expected in a debate. Also helps to sell books.

I never really saw him as confrontational as characterized. In actual videos, lectures and in the books I've read he seemed fairly mild mannered, but maybe in his younger days, I wasn't paying attention.

 

[Nakosis]

Aren't we all.

I like outspoken people, ok maybe not all. Those folks going about chanting mindless slogans are pretty annoying. However intelligent outspoken folks who can correct my misconceptions I'm all for.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Who doesn't?

Maybe more what I meant was 'only insufferable talkers'...

In reading the OP, I thought the following;
1) You can't really talk for 'non-militant atheists', since we're not very unified in our opinions. For example, as @Saint Frankenstein mentioned, I'm anti-Ten Commandments in courts, and I'm against the Lord's Prayer being said at the start of Parliament here in Australia. I'm also in favour of giving women autonomy over their own bodies, and for marriage equality. I don't think anyone who knows me would call me a 'militant atheist' and even here on RF (where I talk more about religion that the rest of my life BY FAR) I don't see myself as militant.
In short, I wouldn't speak for non-militant atheists.
2) Whilst insufferable talkers by definition are insufferable, they appear to have the right to talk, and I have the right to disagree with them. I'd do so on each issue, rather than their belief or non-belief, and that plays into my secular view of the world. That doesn't mean I don't disagree with theists, but that my disagreement is with their position REGARDLESS of their theism. I would make no allowances for their theism in terms of my position, although understanding it helps me understand their rationale and motivation.
3) Your talk of 'militant atheism' as a political position rather than anything else confuses me. I'm not suggesting it's incorrect, I'm just wondering how it could be otherwise. Any ideology which is driven to take action is political. The underlying motivation for the activism might be religious or not, but ISIS (for a simple example) is a political movement. As is PETA. So perhaps you might explain what you mean more.

 

[dianaiad]

How many 'militant atheists' have attacked doctors and other staff at an abortion clinic; how many have flown planes into skyscrapers?
Indeed they are guilty of the heinous crime of using strong words to dismiss fanciful claims.

As my Mum used to say, "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never harm me"

Is it really 'Militant'?

Militant atheists (the sincerely anti-theists) have been guilty of more deaths in one half century than theists have in the entire written history of mankind.

They don't kill 'in the name of atheism' (though that's the bottom line). They kill 'because you are a theist and don't deserve to live.'

they killed other people for other reasons, too, of course, but they killed people. Lots of 'em. ...and the fact that they didn't have a God to explain things to was part of the reason they could.

We ARE talking only about the 'militant' atheists, though, rignt? Personally, I figure that if it walks like a religion, and talks like a religion, it's a religion...even if the basis for it is 'there is no God and that is a truth that we can force others to acknowledge" or "there is a god, and He is Who we say He is, and we can force our beliefs on others." When the results of a belief are the same either way.....I honestly don't see much difference.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Militant is me without the politics. I'm outspoken and combative. Okay. Candy asses? Can you stop whining about everything?

If you want to redefine disagreeing with you as whining about everything, then maybe a public debate site isn't the place for someone as fragile as you appear to be.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe more what I meant was 'only insufferable talkers'...

In reading the OP, I thought the following;
1) You can't really talk for 'non-militant atheists', since we're not very unified in our opinions. For example, as @Saint Frankenstein mentioned, I'm anti-Ten Commandments in courts, and I'm against the Lord's Prayer being said at the start of Parliament here in Australia. I'm also in favour of giving women autonomy over their own bodies, and for marriage equality. I don't think anyone who knows me would call me a 'militant atheist' and even here on RF (where I talk more about religion that the rest of my life BY FAR) I don't see myself as militant.
In short, I wouldn't speak for non-militant atheists.
2) Whilst insufferable talkers by definition are insufferable, they appear to have the right to talk, and I have the right to disagree with them. I'd do so on each issue, rather than their belief or non-belief, and that plays into my secular view of the world. That doesn't mean I don't disagree with theists, but that my disagreement is with their position REGARDLESS of their theism. I would make no allowances for their theism in terms of my position, although understanding it helps me understand their rationale and motivation.
3) Your talk of 'militant atheism' as a political position rather than anything else confuses me. I'm not suggesting it's incorrect, I'm just wondering how it could be otherwise. Any ideology which is driven to take action is political. The underlying motivation for the activism might be religious or not, but ISIS (for a simple example) is a political movement. As is PETA. So perhaps you might explain what you mean more.

I find militant atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair (hard spelling to
remember) to be really useful in effecting positive political change.
I recall forced Christian prayer in public schools. She ended that.

It's not a religion.
Neither is it a political affiliation.
It just accurately describes her.

 

[SomeRandom]

Aggressive and confrontational is kind of expected in a debate. Also helps to sell books.

I never really saw him as confrontational as characterized. In actual videos, lectures and in the books I've read he seemed fairly mild mannered, but maybe in his younger days, I wasn't paying attention.

I've seen him snap once or twice. But usually when an opponent says something so dumb even high schoolers would face palm. Honestly Hitchens was probably more combative, usually with a smoke in hand. But perhaps their obvious British politeness made them seem less aggressive.


I once had a physics teacher who greatly admired Dawkins. We used to derail the class by asking him to discuss one of Dawkins' lectures. Probably learnt more biology in that class than in my actual biology classes lol.

 

[lukethethird]

Oh, no, these people are far from organized. I've seen more organized creatures running around farmyards with their heads cut off. No. They are only outspoken.

So what you're saying is, there's nowhere to join?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Militant atheists (the sincerely anti-theists) have been guilty of more deaths in one half century than theists have in the entire written history of mankind.

They don't kill 'in the name of atheism' (though that's the bottom line). They kill 'because you are a theist and don't deserve to live.'

they killed other people for other reasons, too, of course, but they killed people. Lots of 'em. ...and the fact that they didn't have a God to explain things to was part of the reason they could.

We ARE talking only about the 'militant' atheists, though, rignt? Personally, I figure that if it walks like a religion, and talks like a religion, it's a religion...even if the basis for it is 'there is no God and that is a truth that we can force others to acknowledge" or "there is a god, and He is Who we say He is, and we can force our beliefs on others." When the results of a belief are the same either way.....I honestly don't see much difference.

Atheism is about as informative as 'theist'.
When i get lumped in with a group of Communist revolutionaries just because they didn't believe in God, it's as informative as me tying you to ISIS.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I find militant atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair (hard spelling to
remember) to be really useful in effecting positive political change.
I recall forced Christian prayer in public schools. She ended that.

It's not a religion.
Neither is it a political affiliation.
It just accurately describes her.

I don't think you and I have any disagreement on this, to be honest. Let's just say I'd see her petitioning a school board as political activism, even though it's not related to political parties, elections, etc.

The broad brush of 'political'.

And if you wouldn't describe it that way, all cool. Just describing how broadly I see it.

 

[lukethethird]

The average atheists doesn't bother themselves with the nonsensical doings of the believer.

When in love, who does?

 

[LuisDantas]

Let's compromise . . . how about "almost non existent"? Or, perhaps a hat's off to Douglas Adams, let's say "mostly harmless."

No compromise. Harmful fantasies are not something that I want to condone.