Militant Atheism: Religion Or Political Affiliation?

[BilliardsBall]

I think we call that euthanasia. If a zygote can't feel pain then I don't know what use anaesthetic would even be. Perhaps if it's at a stage where it can feel pain, then sure anaesthetic should be used in abortion. Think it is last I heard.
Adult humans all feel pain. So I don't know how many medical practitioners would refuse to use anasthetic. Maybe you can find one if that is your wish I suppose. I'd question their ethics, but to each their own.

Watching people be forced to be kept alive against their wishes will haunt me till my dying breath. People withering away in agony, starving themselves so they don't burden their family or are disgusted with living life on a hospital bed. So I'm all for people choosing to be euthanised (or aborted, if you like.) I think some of those people would welcome being drowned in acid.

See, I can pull out the emotional card too. I have seen behind the hospital curtain.

ANESTHETIC FOR THE FOETUS/CHILD, NOT THE MOTHER. Where is your compassion for the weak, helpless members of our society?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Definition of militant atheist: An atheist who has become insufferably elitest. Unlike a majority of most atheists, he has decided that it is his duty to rid the world of all religion. Ironically, he never shuts up about religion, putting him into the same level of irritation as most religious fundamentalists.

This is a weird way to define militant atheism. You might as well just define them "People who don't things that I don't like and are dumb idiot heads". If your definition includes phrases like "insufferably elitest" and "same level of irritation as most religious fundamentalists", then your definition is obviously not particularly useful and largely just a derisive term.

I believe you were asked before, but perhaps if you could give a specific example of "militant atheists" and the views or actions of them that you object to, and why you object to them, this debate might have more merit.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Where is your compassion for the weak, helpless members of our society?

My compassion is in my worldview. I am a secular humanist and a liberal. We advocate for the weak and helpless, as well as the poor, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and those needing a helping hand with their education expenses and business start-up expenses.

Are you an American conservative Christian? Do you vote Republican? If so, I ask you where is your compassion for the weak and helpless members of our society?

If you are either not American or not politically conservative, the following doesn't apply to you:

"You were hungry and thirsty, so I eliminated funding for Meals on Wheels and food banks. You were a stranger, so I vilified you and demanded that you be deported. You were naked, so I called you an evil liberal who hates conservative family values. You were sick, so I repealed your only hope for health care. You were in prison, so I tortured you." - Matthew 25: 42-43 in The Conservative Bible

Incidentally, the fetus is not a member of society, which is why it doesn't enjoy the rights and protections afforded actual members of society - you know, the people you can actually see and interact with.

 

[Earthling]

Out of curiosity, I don't suppose you call outspoken theists who care about Nativity scenes, Ten Commandments monuments, etc., "militant theists," do you?

Yes, I do. Even though my beliefs don't garner concern for those issues, I also term myself as militant theist in that I am outspoken and combative, for example, on these forums.

Militant is clearly defined throughout this thread as "outspoken, combative." Most atheists, in my personal experience, are not militant. Those on forums like these, are.

 

[Earthling]

@Revoltingest is correct, this is pretty much a generalized rant.

I can't help but notice that you use the term "kill babies" when I presume what you mean is abortion. And while I don't happen to like abortion used instead of contraception, I can still see times when a woman must absolutely be given complete right over her own body. Accidents, and rapes, do happen, sadly enough.

As a matter of fact, growing up in a basically Christian nation (Canada), I can remember when condoms had to be sold with the message "Sold for the prevention of disease only" prominently on the package, because even contraception was considered -- by the believers -- to be sinful. Of course, everybody knew what they were using them for anyway, which simply made everybody a liar. A neat trick, in the name of religious belief.

In that same Christian nation, I happened to grow up gay, which, by dint of Christian wisdom, was very wrong of me, so that I could be put in jail. For loving! Nice work.

No, most atheists just wish that believers would do their believing without trying to rope the rest of us in and force us to behave in ways that we don't believe. (In fact, most believers don't really believe what they like to say they do. You want the 10 commandments in the courthouse? What's the percentage of believers, do you think, who break the 6th? One of the 10 MOST IMPORTANT THINGS the suppose God to have proclaimed, and it doesn't get paid all that much attention to by over one third of those who made a vow to the contrary.

Well, this is the type of discussion this thread was attempting to address. The crybaby atheists had to take objection to the term "militant atheist" which ****ed it all up.

The crybabies always seem to miss that I criticize, not just them, but other Christians, and The Watchtower, the latter who I agree with in the majority of their teachings. I also point out my own flaws and imperfections, and admit when I'm corrected that I was wrong, if that is demonstrated to be the case.

Militant theists who try and propagate their typically narrow, ignorant and hypocritical interpretation of Christianity, which is nothing more than a politicized transmogrification of Christ's teachings, do so for political reasons. The laws of Israel were read to them by Moses before all of the people, and they agreed to them. The Israelites didn't try to enforce those laws outside of Israel. They no longer apply to Christians and only ever applied to ancient Israelites.

The modern day Christian is supposed not to be a part of the world. They aren't supposed to try and influence the world outside of the congregation on issues like abortion, which is the killing of babies, or stem cell research, gay marriage etc.

But, they do. That's how they interpret the teachings of Christ. Like they are supposed to be a "Christian Nation" which, by the way, is a concept that doesn't exist.

HOWEVER, the game of politics, of "democracy" insist that the majority rules, so their belief based meddling, however misguided and obviously political and social - are within the rules of that game. Why shouldn't they be able to decide these things or protest them, so long as it is within the parameters of the law.

The only solution, from the atheist protesters political dissatisfaction, is to accept the rule of the majority, or get rid of that world view, which is fundamentalist Christian.

 

[Earthling]

I suspect that it's just people who don't like the holidays in general and want any excuse to remove even secular Christmas decorations.

Nevermind all of us non-Christians who decorate and like the general Yuletide aesthetics. The pretext of them speaking on behalf of all us non-Christians and removing these decorations as to not offend us is just an excuse for general humbuggery.

That's easy for you to say. There are plenty of non-believing people who wail against Christianity all year long, except for when it gets to Christmas, which is actually a pagan holiday and nothing to do with Christ. Apostate Christianity adopted it and it was generally rejected until Charles Dickens wrote The Christmas Carol" in the 1840s, I believe.

The separation of church and state may not mean anything to you, but it does to a lot of people. Believer and unbeliever alike. How these sorts of seemingly harmless frivolities can be very harmful to some is demonstrated by the issue of prayer in school. For a true follower of the Bible to "pledge allegiance to the flag" a prayer, is an extreme act of disrespect to God, and a forced to recant, in effect. They would rather die.

What does such a display demonstrate in a state building to anyone outside of that belief system? That the state isn't representing them.

 

[Earthling]

You misspelled elitist.

So I Did. You misspelled your name. Aint. It Ain't Necessarily So.

 

[Earthling]

This is a weird way to define militant atheism. You might as well just define them "People who don't things that I don't like and are dumb idiot heads". If your definition includes phrases like "insufferably elitest" and "same level of irritation as most religious fundamentalists", then your definition is obviously not particularly useful and largely just a derisive term.

I believe you were asked before, but perhaps if you could give a specific example of "militant atheists" and the views or actions of them that you object to, and why you object to them, this debate might have more merit.

I've done that. Scroll through it.

 

[Milton Platt]

It's problematic in that there is such a stark contrast to the militant atheist and the average atheist on the street that finds the militant atheist somewhat embarrassing. The so called "militant" atheist is outspoken where the average atheist doesn't see the sense in directing that much attention on themselves. The average atheists doesn't bother themselves with the nonsensical doings of the believer. They don't care if the Nativity Scene is in the courtyard, or Christmas lights strung up at the local post office or whatever. 10 Commandments in the courthouse? Who cares? It's all corrupt nonsense anyway.

But if you talk to some of the militant atheists, once you get passed the bumper sticker slogans, billboard blasphemy, and incessant and inane ramblings about evolution, education and ecclesiastical society, it narrows down to politics.

They don't like people who vote opposite of them if those other people happen to believe in God. So, if they vote that its okay to kill babies if those babies are unwanted it pisses them off if someone believes in God and votes it isn't okay to kill babies. So the believers have no right to express their concern over the matter because they believe in God and this influences them? The whole of civilization is based upon such a belief.

It makes absolutely no sense. If one were to make a documentary on the militant atheists it would be like watching political convention. Nothing makes sense and everything seems like something it isn't.

I get your general point. I do believe, however, that there is good reason for atheists as well as the rest of the population to be concerned with politics and such things as evolution, education, and ecclesiastical society. Those effect all of us.
Do you feel everyone should be silent on these subjects, or only atheists?

 

[Earthling]

I get your general point. I do believe, however, that there is good reason for atheists as well as the rest of the population to be concerned with politics and such things as evolution, education, and ecclesiastical society. Those effect all of us.
Do you feel everyone should be silent on these subjects, or only atheists?

These things don't effect me personally. They aren't much of an interest to me. I will comment upon certain subjects that I don't take an active part in, such as the corporate owned media, nonsensical party politics only being a distraction, government corruption and deceit, but this is observation on my part.

It's isn't that I think that anyone should be silent about things that they think are important or that effect their lives. My comments are an observation of the somewhat hypocritical nature of the atheist / theist debate and discussion. It would seem to me they, the militant atheist, are expressing political and social frustration, as I've said many times on the forums, but that is misdirected at beliefs in the Bible which they aren't at all equipped to criticize as well as unfair and hypocritical of theocratic interference with influence, whether societal or political, of a theocratic policy of interference which I myself find contrary to the teachings of Christ.

In other words the militant atheist needs to better express themselves and organize in order to counter the constant meddling of fundamental Xian political and social influence. One way to do that would be to improve education of the Bible before criticizing it, and quite possibly rethink their presentation of 'Science' vs. Religion.

Not stifle their complaints but rethink them and represent them in a way more conducive to their advancement.

 

[Milton Platt]

These things don't effect me personally. They aren't much of an interest to me. I will comment upon certain subjects that I don't take an active part in, such as the corporate owned media, nonsensical party politics only being a distraction, government corruption and deceit, but this is observation on my part.

It's isn't that I think that anyone should be silent about things that they think are important or that effect their lives. My comments are an observation of the somewhat hypocritical nature of the atheist / theist debate and discussion. It would seem to me they, the militant atheist, are expressing political and social frustration, as I've said many times on the forums, but that is misdirected at beliefs in the Bible which they aren't at all equipped to criticize as well as unfair and hypocritical of theocratic interference with influence, whether societal or political, of a theocratic policy of interference which I myself find contrary to the teachings of Christ.

In other words the militant atheist needs to better express themselves and organize in order to counter the constant meddling of fundamental Xian political and social influence. One way to do that would be to improve education of the Bible before criticizing it, and quite possibly rethink their presentation of 'Science' vs. Religion.

Not stifle their complaints but rethink them and represent them in a way more conducive to their advancement.

Yes, it would be nice if atheists were more organized. They are getting better about it. As numbers grow, organization tends to happen and resources materialize.
It’s inherently difficult to organize atheists, who don’t necessarily agree on anything except a lack of belief in deities. As someone once said, it’s like trying to herd cats.

 

[Earthling]

Yes, it would be nice if atheists were more organized. They are getting better about it. As numbers grow, organization tends to happen and resources materialize.
It’s inherently difficult to organize atheists, who don’t necessarily agree on anything except a lack of belief in deities. As someone once said, it’s like trying to herd cats.

I don't buy that. What do homosexuals, blacks and women, all who were well organized, have in common beyond what they socially and politically felt were being unfairly withheld from them? Some things they had in common and some things they didn't. That's irrelevant.

Atheists aren't organized because the majority of them see no point in it. It's the "militant" or if you insist, the more outspoken, demonstrative atheists that are the minority among atheists, but that isn't all that relevant either. Do their numbers have to be great to be heard? It's always been the relatively few who introduce change successfully.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yes, it would be nice if atheists were more organized. They are getting better about it. As numbers grow, organization tends to happen and resources materialize.
It’s inherently difficult to organize atheists, who don’t necessarily agree on anything except a lack of belief in deities. As someone once said, it’s like trying to herd cats.

I actually agree with @Earthling in that I don't see the point in it, personally. It's good to be vigilant about evangelical legislation, sure. But it's good for everyone regardless of their beliefs to be so. There's a lot more Christians out there supporting things like evolution, education, secularism, et all than there are atheists. So feeling like I need to get together with other atheists specifically when there's a broader group of educators, scientists, secular politicians and voters would be more helpful in the long run.

 

[Sanzbir]

That's easy for you to say.

Based on this comment and the later comment you make of "What does such a display demonstrate in a state building to anyone outside of that belief system?" it seems like you are making an incorrect assumption of my religious alignment.

Ya might want to pay a bit more attention!!

There are plenty of non-believing people who wail against Christianity all year long,

And there are plenty of us who like the holiday!! Look how popular it is in Japan and then look at that country's religious demographics.

except for when it gets to Christmas, which is actually a pagan holiday and nothing to do with Christ. Apostate Christianity adopted it and it was generally rejected until Charles Dickens wrote The Christmas Carol" in the 1840s, I believe.

I'm not sure you're idea on the historicity of Christmas is accurate, but whatever, that's not really relevant to the overall point...

But yes, it was a pagan holiday originally. And now it's a holiday celebrated around the world by many Christians and non-Christians alike!!

The separation of church and state may not mean anything to you, but it does to a lot of people. Believer and unbeliever alike.

Please help me understand this, because I honestly have no idea how people with your position process this.

So one one hand you're telling me that Christmas isn't a Christian holiday, as you said above...

And on the other hand you're telling me that acknowledging this non-Christian holiday is an affront to the separation of Church and State.

What?!

How these sorts of seemingly harmless frivolities can be very harmful to some is demonstrated by the issue of prayer in school.

Please explain how the acknowledgement of a non-Christian holiday is similar to forced prayer in public schools.

For a true follower of the Bible to "pledge allegiance to the flag" a prayer, is an extreme act of disrespect to God, and a forced to recant, in effect. They would rather die.

Okay.

What does such a display demonstrate in a state building to anyone outside of that belief system? That the state isn't representing them.

Outside of what belief system!? Paganism?? You yourself said it wasn't Christian!!

Again, I don't get your thought process here.

If it's not a Christian holiday, as you yourself said, then there's no logical problem in using these non-Christian seasonal decorations. What is specifically Christian about colored lights on an evergreen tree??

Your statements are inherently contradictory.

Also, if you didn't notice, I am "outside" that belief system. I like the decorations. I decorate my house in a similar manner, so the state is indeed representing me (despite your claims to the contrary that it is not representing me!!), and countless others from all sorts of religious backgrounds who decorate trees during the month of December.

At this point in time, this style of decoration is a cultural practice beyond one single religion. So what's the problem??

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, this is the type of discussion this thread was attempting to address. The crybaby atheists had to take objection to the term "militant atheist" which ****ed it all up.

The crybabies always seem to miss that I criticize, not just them, but other Christians, and The Watchtower, the latter who I agree with in the majority of their teachings. I also point out my own flaws and imperfections, and admit when I'm corrected that I was wrong, if that is demonstrated to be the case.

Militant theists who try and propagate their typically narrow, ignorant and hypocritical interpretation of Christianity, which is nothing more than a politicized transmogrification of Christ's teachings, do so for political reasons. The laws of Israel were read to them by Moses before all of the people, and they agreed to them. The Israelites didn't try to enforce those laws outside of Israel. They no longer apply to Christians and only ever applied to ancient Israelites.

The modern day Christian is supposed not to be a part of the world. They aren't supposed to try and influence the world outside of the congregation on issues like abortion, which is the killing of babies, or stem cell research, gay marriage etc.

But, they do. That's how they interpret the teachings of Christ. Like they are supposed to be a "Christian Nation" which, by the way, is a concept that doesn't exist.

HOWEVER, the game of politics, of "democracy" insist that the majority rules, so their belief based meddling, however misguided and obviously political and social - are within the rules of that game. Why shouldn't they be able to decide these things or protest them, so long as it is within the parameters of the law.

The only solution, from the atheist protesters political dissatisfaction, is to accept the rule of the majority, or get rid of that world view, which is fundamentalist Christian.

Really, I cannot agree with you, I'm afraid. I do not divide the world up into religious and non-religious, Christian nations or other faith nations. I live in a world made up of humans, for better or worse. I can't change that.

For you to say something like "the modern day Christian is supposed not to be part of the world," simply ignores the one incontrovertible fact that the modern day Christian is to a very great extent just exactly a part of the world. And being in it, needs to try and influence the world, and will be likewise influenced by it. This is a reality which, if ignored, leads you to wallow in a sea of misunderstanding.

And the great beauty of some of our modern, western constitutions and charters of human rights is precisely that we do NOT have to accept the "rule of the majority." That rule has been purposefully constrained, by the common assertion and acceptance of certain indissoluble rights and freedoms … to religion, or freedom from it, the right to speak freely, to believe freely, and so forth, along with the concomitant obligation to afford those same rights and freedoms to others, and to demand their own obligation to afford yours.

And then to make every effort to all of that peacefully.

I have said repeatedly that I, as an atheist, have no interest in shutting down the rights of others to worship as they choose, or believe they must. Nor do I desire that their celebrations and religious symbols be hidden away. I'm all for Christmas trees in public places, along with Menorahs, creches, and the like.

As to your opening paragraph above, I cannot help but think it to be a very odd thing for an actual "GOD," in the kind of universal way that I think such an entity would have to exist, if it existed at all, would be all about such parochial nonsense as special laws for one group of people that don't apply to others. That's the business of local governments, and local religions. Not God.