Militant Atheism

[Bunyip]

Emotional experiences do not refute a claim, simple as that. It is fallacious reasoning thus is irrational. Just as the emotions created by religion and forms of creationism does not refute evolution.

Sure. So you are saying that this woman lost her faith because of a history of abuse is an example of 'pop culture atheism'?
That does seem incongruous to me.
Can you tell me more about her?

 

[Cephus]

Sure. So you are saying that this woman lost her faith because of a history of abuse is an example of 'pop culture atheism'?
That does seem incongruous to me.
Can you tell me more about her?

There is a difference between someone who walks away from religion because of bad experiences and someone who walks away from religion because they have seriously studied the religion and found it to be evidentially lacking.

 

[Bunyip]

There is a difference between someone who walks away from religion because of bad experiences and someone who walks away from religion because they have seriously studied the religion and found it to be evidentially lacking.

Of course. And that is 'pop culture atheism' is it?

 

[Looncall]

But fighting fanaticism is not militancy. It Is the right thing to do.


Militancy against normal theism is wrong however, and is not a part of typical atheism.

Why is militancy against normal theism wrong if the theism is shown to be both mistaken and noxious?

Crimes committed due to militancy are still wrong, of course, regardless of the flavour of the militant.

 

[Shad]

Sure. So you are saying that this woman lost her faith because of a history of abuse is an example of 'pop culture atheism'?

Yes. Having a bad experience only shows that a person had a bad experience. It is an appeal to emotions but does nothing to address theism or atheism. It just means she should not interact with her abuser(s)

That does seem incongruous to me.

The experience itself or that appeals to emotions are not valid? If the later it is a fallacy thus showing a break in one's thinking. If the former then there is nothing I can say or do about it.

Can you tell me more about her?

As long as the questions do not involve a level of detail that would expose her on the internet and are within reason I will do my best. Keep in mind she was a JW so some of these blankets can be filled in with knowledge of how JW are organized, act and some of their beliefs.

 

[Shad]

Of course. And that is 'pop culture atheism' is it?

It is part of pop-culture atheism that does not bother to look at reasons for/against theism/atheism and any view generates is applicable to the whole group. It just means the X amount of people of set Y are jerks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I described militancy in regard to atheists. It can apply in regards to other things as well, as any good adjective can.

I don't think it hypocritical at all to describe militancy in regards to atheists.

It's hypocritical if you don't describe theists as "militant" on the same terms.

That's fine, it just seems calling most atheists militant is a bit of hyperbole but I suppose what is meant is anti-theist.

It's still hypoerbole even if it was applied to anti-theists.

Take the average anti-theist statement against faith, reword it to be in favour of faith, and you'll get something that would be right at home in a UU or liberal Christian Sunday service where the congregation's main criticism would be either that it's too boring or too wishy-washy.

Take a mainstream Christian sermon in praise of faith, rewrite it to be against faith, and you'd get something far more extreme than anything put out by the "Four Horsemen".

 

[Willamena]

It's hypocritical if you don't describe theists as "militant" on the same terms.

If the topic were about them, I might.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the topic were about them, I might.

And if you did that, you'd be using the word "militant" in a way that is divorced from reality.

There's no way to use the term "militant" to describe even outspoken atheists that makes sense.

 

[Willamena]

There's no way to use the term "militant" to describe even outspoken atheists that makes sense.

What makes atheists exempt? Is it that they behave completely uniformly as a group? Maybe they're all saints?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What makes atheists exempt? Is it that they behave completely uniformly as a group? Maybe they're all saints?

They aren't exempt. The people you describe as "militant atheists" just haven't met a reasonable threshold for "militant".

I'm unfamiliar with this rule that adjectives apply universally.

You're unfamiliar with the idea that hypocrisy and double standards should be avoided?

 

[Willamena]

They aren't exempt. The people you describe as "militant atheists" just haven't met a reasonable threshold for "militant".

If they are confrontational, they do.

You're unfamiliar with the idea that hypocrisy and double standards should be avoided?

Once it was red herring to go off topic, now it's become hypocrisy to stick to the topic. I've had enough of these forums.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If they are confrontational, they do.

No, if they engage in an organized effort to further atheism through violence, then they're militant.

No prominent atheist today is militant. Plenty of theists are.

Once it was red herring to go off topic, now it's become hypocrisy to stick to the topic. I've had enough of these forums.

There are lots of ways for an argument to be crappy. The fact that you've been wrong in other ways before doesn't mean you're right this time.

 

[Cephus]

Of course. And that is 'pop culture atheism' is it?

I guess you can call it whatever you want to. But most of the time, when atheists talk about atheism, they're talking about the educated sort and when the religious talk about atheism, they're talking about the emotional sort. Both exist, I find the educated sort more credible.

 

[Willamena]

There are lots of ways for an argument to be crappy. The fact that you've been wrong in other ways before doesn't mean you're right this time.

Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that answering a question in the OP on topic is hypocricy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that answering a question in the OP on topic is hypocricy.

In and of itself, refusing to acknowledge the implications of what you're arguing in context would only be evasive, not necessarily hypocritical.

And the jury's still out on whether what you're argument is hypocritical; it may be divorced from reality instead. It *is* one or the other, though.

 

[Bunyip]

I guess you can call it whatever you want to. But most of the time, when atheists talk about atheism, they're talking about the educated sort and when the religious talk about atheism, they're talking about the emotional sort. Both exist, I find the educated sort more credible.

Of course. What I am questioning is the claim that a person who lost their faith due to a long history of abuse is a 'pop culture atheist', like Dawkins and so on as Shad was saying.

 

[Bunyip]

It is part of pop-culture atheism that does not bother to look at reasons for/against theism/atheism and any view generates is applicable to the whole group. It just means the X amount of people of set Y are jerks.

Wow. What can I say?
So people who lose faith as a consequence of years of abuse are jerks, and 'pop culture atheists'?

You know what mate, that is just about the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. When you need to sink that low, just stop.

 

[Cephus]

Of course. What I am questioning is the claim that a person who lost their faith due to a long history of abuse is a 'pop culture atheist', like Dawkins and so on as Shad was saying.

Since I could find no actual definition for "pop culture atheist", it's just something Shad made up, so...

 

[Augustus]

It's still hypoerbole even if it was applied to anti-theists.

Some have even applied it to themselves though:

The League of Militant Atheists[1] (Russian: Союз воинствующих безбожниковSoyuz voinstvuyushchikh bezbozhnikov); Society of the Godless(Общество безбожников Obshchestvo bezbozhnikov); Union of the Godless (Союз безбожников Soyuz bezbozhnikov), was an atheistic and antireligious organization of workers and intelligentsia that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Soviet Communist Party from 1925 to 1947.[2]
...

"There can be no doubt that the fact that the new state of the USSR led by the communist party, with a program permeated by the spirit of militant atheism, gives the reason why this state is successfully surmounting the great difficulties that stand in its way - that neither "heavenly powers" nor the exhortations of all the priests in all the world can prevent its attaining its aims it has set itself"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

I do agree that, in contemporary usage, it is a bit hyperbolic and carries unnecessary connotations due to religious militants who are actually violent.

A term like evangelical atheists would probably be better.