"Militant" Atheism

[Runt]

OK...just clarify something for me here:

If non-believers try to convert others to atheism,they're militant (with 'militant', in the context of this thread, at least, having some negative connotation).

If believers try to convert others to their belief, they're just spreading their God's word and are not militant?

The Oxford English Dictionary classifies 'militant' thusly:

"favouring confrontational methods in support of a cause"

With legal battles to teach creationism in schools, along with a history full of jihads, fatwahs, the Crusades, the Inquisition, 911 and so on, isn't it a little hypoocritical to deny atheists the freedom to be as militant as everyone else?

It's a matter of degree.

There are theists and atheists who have beliefs and more or less keep them to themselves.

There are theists and atheists who have beliefs and want others to know about them.

There are theists and atheists who have beliefs and want to convert others to them.

There are theists and atheists who have beliefs and go overboard in their attempt to proselytize.

There's a difference between atheists who want to share their beliefs and atheists who actively seek to ridicule, condemn and, ultimately, eradicate religion.

I agree with you, however, that "militant atheism" is a bit of a misnomer. It implies that these people are willing to use any means necessary---even force---to push their beliefs, which is generally not the case. I think the term "evangelical atheism" is more appropriate.

 

[The Great Architect]

I know plenty of atheists, and I can say from experience that 99% of them stand up for their beliefs to the point where it becomes quite 'militant'! It's scary, actually.:cover:

 

[Phil Lawton]

There's a difference between atheists who want to share their beliefs and atheists who actively seek to ridicule, condemn and, ultimately, eradicate religion.

But atheists have no belief - how can they share nothing? And what if the anti-theists do actively seek to ridicule and eradicate religion? How different is this from those who seek to eradicate atheism?

I agree with you, however, that "militant atheism" is a bit of a misnomer. It implies that these people are willing to use any means necessary---even force---to push their beliefs, which is generally not the case. I think the term "evangelical atheism" is more appropriate.

I think that "evangelical atheism" is quite rare - most atheists don't give a toss.

 

[Phil Lawton]

I know plenty of atheists, and I can say from experience that 99% of them stand up for their beliefs to the point where it becomes quite 'militant'! It's scary, actually.:cover:

As opposed to not standing up for what they believe (which is nothing) and capitulating, much like most Muslims and Catholics?

 

[The Great Architect]

As opposed to not standing up for what they believe (which is nothing) and capitulating, much like most Muslims and Catholics?

that's a little harsh, perhaps. I can see your point, though. It is important not to capitulate! There is no need to intimidate others, in the process of advocating one's own beliefs -- I hope you will agree with me there.

 

[Phil Lawton]

There is no need to intimidate others, in the process of advocating one's own beliefs -- I hope you will agree with me there.

Of course I'll agree with you, TGA. But the undercurrent in a few posts seems to be "Bloody atheists...you tell 'em they're wrong and they get all defensive".

 

[Runt]

But atheists have no belief - how can they share nothing?

Okay... I don't mean to sound patronizing here, but... do you know what atheism is? You seem to be suggesting that it is a lack of belief in anything, rather than a conviction that God does not exist. Atheist = "no-God" = lack of a belief in God. Although some atheists leave it at that, many don't; along with the lack of a belief in God's existence can come other, related ideas: naturalism, positivism, antitheism, etc. Many---not all, but many---atheists believe (and may want to convince others) that God is a delusion that mankind is better off without; that it is better to approach one's life with logic rather than faith; that it is better to believe in things we know exist rather than things we don't; that religion is harmful to individuals and society; etc. So, you see, atheism is not merely a lack of belief, but at least one concrete belief---that there is no God---that may or may not be accompanied by a collection of related beliefs.


If you want to say that atheists have no beliefs and therefore have nothing to say, fine. But positivists, naturalists and antitheists have plenty of beliefs to share with you and the world.

And what if the anti-theists do actively seek to ridicule and eradicate religion? How different is this from those who seek to eradicate atheism?

It's the same. Both are wrong; there's a limit to how far one---whether an atheist or a theist---should go in pushing their beliefs upon others.

I think that "evangelical atheism" is quite rare - most atheists don't give a toss.

Most of the atheists I know---and I know a lot, because of my own interests and my educational background---do indeed "give a toss". However, I admit that my sample population might not be, err, representative of the norm...

 

[Phil Lawton]

Okay... I don't mean to sound patronizing here, but... do you know what atheism is?

You might not have meant to, but you did. I know quite well what atheism means. When I used word "nothing" when relating to belief, I was referring to some sort of all-seeing, all-knowing, "it's-even-in-your-light-bulb!" god of any denomination.

You seem to be suggesting that it is a lack of belief in anything

Then I misrepresented myself.

Atheist = "no-God" = lack of a belief in God.

Thanks for that

Although some atheists leave it at that, many don't; along with the lack of a belief in God's existence can come other, related ideas: naturalism, positivism, antitheism, etc. Many---not all, but many---atheists believe (and may want to convince others) that God is a delusion that mankind is better off without' that it is better to approach one's life with logic rather than faith; that it is better to believe in things we know exist rather than things we don't; that religion is harmful to individuals and society; etc

Atheists can embrace all of that without the need to convince others.

So, you see, atheism is not merely a lack of belief, but at least one concrete belief---that there is no God---that may or may not be accompanied by a collection of related beliefs.

But as I've said previously, how can a non-belief be concrete (see my UFO/leprechaun/unicorn)?

If you want to say that atheists have no beliefs and therefore have nothing to say, fine.

I didn't say or imply that.

But positivists, naturalists and antitheists have plenty of beliefs to share with you and the world.

Of that, I have no doubt, R.

 

[The Great Architect]

Of course I'll agree with you, TGA. But the undercurrent in a few posts seems to be "Bloody atheists...you tell 'em they're wrong and they get all defensive".

I don't think you can get it wrong. For me, it all comes down to how the other person presents their views; i.e. with affability, patience and understanding.:bow:

 

[Phil Lawton]

I don't think you can get it wrong. For me, it all comes down to how the other person presents their views; i.e. with affability, patience and understanding.:bow:

Dammit all TGA - we need to start a commune in Brecon Beacons. I'll selflessly volunteer to vet all the female recruits.

 

[The Great Architect]

Dammit all TGA - we need to start a commune in Brecon Beacons. I'll selflessly volunteer to vet all the female recruits.

okay! I'll be there ASAP!

 

[Runt]

Atheists can embrace all of that without the need to convince others.



But as I've said previously, how can a non-belief be concrete (see my UFO/leprechaun/unicorn)?

Kay. Imagine for a moment that an individual who does not believe in UFOs encounters an individual who believes with all of his heart that UFOs exist and that a UFO is going to take him away to a "better place".

The skeptic is probably going to think that he's bloody crazy, but the skeptic is also probably not going to care enough to do anything to try to convince the believer otherwise.

However, now imagine that the individual who believes that a UFO will take him to a "better place" also believes that he has to castrate himself and then commit suicide in order to go with the UFO to this "better place", and that it is his moral obligation to spread this belief to others. And worse, others are jumping onto the bandwagon.

Yes, the skeptic can indeed embrace the belief that all of this is false and harmful without doing anything to try to convince others. But there's a very good chance he's not going to do so, and for good reason: he believes that it would be wrong to ignore the very real threat posed to humanity by this irrational belief in UFOs.

For some militant atheists, not believing what they consider to be false and harmful notions leads naturally to trying to disprove and guide people away from such beliefs. Their lack of a belief in God (UFOs) may not, as you argue, be concrete, but their belief that the belief in God (UFOs) is false and harmful is concrete. Their conviction that such a belief should be eradicated "for the good of humanity" may be even stronger.

 

[The Great Architect]

Kay. Imagine for a moment that an individual who does not believe in UFOs encounters an individual who believes with all of his heart that UFOs exist and that a UFO is going to take him away to a "better place".

The skeptic is probably going to think that he's bloody crazy, but the skeptic is also probably not going to care enough to do anything to try to convince the believer otherwise.

However, now imagine that the individual who believes that a UFO will take him to a "better place" also believes that he has to castrate himself and then commit suicide in order to go with the UFO to this "better place", and that it is his moral obligation to spread this belief to others. And worse, others are jumping onto the bandwagon.

Yes, the skeptic can indeed embrace the belief that all of this is false and harmful without doing anything to try to convince others. But there's a very good chance he's not going to do so, and for good reason: he believes that it would be wrong to ignore the very real threat posed to humanity by this irrational belief in UFOs.

For some militant atheists, not believing what they consider to be false and harmful notions leads naturally to trying to disprove and guide people away from such beliefs. Their lack of a belief in God (UFOs) may not, as you argue, be concrete, but their belief that the belief in God (UFOs) is false and harmful is concrete. Their conviction that such a belief should be eradicated "for the good of humanity" may be even stronger.

okay, I'm with you now! That is to say, you present a perfectly good reason, or rationale, as to why some people choose not to believe in God. You have me thinking.
1. Can man choose not to believe in God/a higher power and still fully nurture a spiritual side?
2. What is man without a spiritual side, which is an important part of each human's spiritual development?
Thanks very much.

 

[Phil Lawton]

Kay. Imagine for a moment that an individual who does not believe in UFOs encounters an individual who believes with all of his heart that UFOs exist and that a UFO is going to take him away to a "better place".

The skeptic is probably going to think that he's bloody crazy, but the skeptic is also probably not going to care enough to do anything to try to convince the believer otherwise.

However, now imagine that the individual who believes that a UFO will take him to a "better place" also believes that he has to castrate himself and then commit suicide in order to go with the UFO to this "better place", and that it is his moral obligation to spread this belief to others. And worse, others are jumping onto the bandwagon.

Yes, the skeptic can indeed embrace the belief that all of this is false and harmful without doing anything to try to convince others. But there's a very good chance he's not going to do so, and for good reason: he believes that it would be wrong to ignore the very real threat posed to humanity by this irrational belief in UFOs.

For some militant atheists, not believing what they consider to be false and harmful notions leads naturally to trying to disprove and guide people away from such beliefs. Their lack of a belief in God (UFOs) may not, as you argue, be concrete, but their belief that the belief in God (UFOs) is false and harmful is concrete. Their conviction that such a belief should be eradicated "for the good of humanity" may be even stronger.

I see where you're going, R...but to be honest, if a UFO-believer told me that the Space Brethren were going to take him away only if he chopped off his wedding tackle (and I bet that would be the case, too...those filthy commie aliens want to breed with our females, you know), I'd let him do it and clean the gene pool out a bit.

 

[Runt]

okay, I'm with you now! That is to say, you present a perfectly good reason, or rationale, as to why some people choose not to believe in God. You have me thinking.
1. Can man choose not to believe in God/a higher power and still fully nurture a spiritual side?

Oh yes, I believe so. That is what I strive to do as a UU. I personally find inspiration and fulfillment in humanity and in the natural world.

2. What is man without a spiritual side, which is an important part of each human's spiritual development?
Thanks very much.

Well, that depends on how one defines spiritual, I suppose. If one defines it in a supernatural way---referring to concepts of the divine, the immortal soul, etc---then I would say that man without a spiritual side is a being that finds emotional fulfillment in things he can see and touch rather than spiritual fulfillment in things that may or may not be there. He will still search for meaning and fullfillment and, I believe, find it in the world and people around him, but he will not find it in concepts such as God and Christ.

 

[Runt]

I see where you're going, R...but to be honest, if a UFO-believer told me that the Space Brethren were going to take him away only if he chopped off his wedding tackle (and I bet that would be the case, too...those filthy commie aliens want to breed with our females, you know), I'd let him do it and clean the gene pool out a bit.

On the one hand I'm inclined to agree. If you want to kill yourself, fine. But the militant atheist probably is (or considers himself) more ethical than that...

Also, we have to consider: the militant atheist may not want the UFO-believer to help devise policy decisions which may affect his life and the lives of his chlidren. He may even want his children to be sheltered from such dangerous ideas, and it may offend him to walk into public buildings and see UFO posters on the walls or something. Even if the average person who believes in the UFOs does not have as strong or dangerous of a belief as the people who think that they have to kill themself to get onto the UFO, the militant atheist is still going to equate the two and consider the belief in UFOs in general to be dangerous---dangerous not only to those who believe, but to society at large.

 

[rojse]

Perhaps we can say that when you become an Atheist, you can free up your Sunday.

 

[Runt]

Perhaps we can say that when you become an Atheist, you can free up your Sunday.

I can't.

 

[logician]

"But as I've said previously, how can a non-belief be concrete (see my UFO/leprechaun/unicorn)?"

Please concretely define your god concept.

 

[Phil Lawton]

"But as I've said previously, how can a non-belief be concrete (see my UFO/leprechaun/unicorn)?"

Please concretely define your god concept.

I don't have a God concept.