"Militant" Atheism

[Aasimar]

Heyas, just posting to see what every thinks.

This is for Atheists, Naturalists, and Non-Theists in general. What are your thoughts on Militant Non-Belief. By Militant I mean aggressive, as in challenging religion in the public sphere (Not Violent

The issue is this, most non-theists are non-conformists. By nature, it seems non-theistic people are free-thinking free-spirited people (Go figure right?) The problem arises that we get pushed around in the public sphere. The term Atheist carries a terrible stigmata with it in the United States, due to ignorance. The biggest issue with religion in our time, as I see it, is the fact that it's on a pedestal. It is supposed to be unquestioned and respected. For some reason if someone believes in something without evidence, I'm supposed to respect that. This odd phenomena that people think they have the right to not be offended has never ceased to amaze me. Things that **** me off are things like 9/11. We blame the people, the poor, the conditions, but never the doctrine itself. Some guys read a book that said if they killed us they'd get some virgins in a magical place. So they flew a plane into a building. Now there is of course the remote possibility that Religion wasn't the primary factor, but what ****** me off is that it isn't even considered. Nobody is allowed to question the religion itself. Where did they learn that suicide bombing leads to virgins? Some guys in Denmark draw a cartoon, A DAMN CARTOON, about Mohammed, and they are murdered. And we still cater to the religion, oh it's ok to murder cartoonists because you're offended, it wasn't the religious belief systems fault. He shouldn't have made fun of you, that's worthy of death right? If I ripped out someones throat because of a "Yo mama joke," I believe things would have been handled slightly differently.

Here's the thing, irrationality is destroying many things that people hold dear. I for one am a big fan of freedom, and also a big fan of truth (And by truth.) Religion has been pushing to have junk science taught in schools. Religion has pushed to have prayer in schools. Religion has managed to hold back funding for stem cell research tragically stifling research that could save countless people.

Now atheistic people may agree or disagree on these individual topics, but I think all can agree that they must be discussed rationally. Religions don't.

I guess the main question is this.

Do you feel that non-theists should just shut up and standby, or should they stand up and speak out for their "Beliefs" (Or lack thereof?)

 

[Inky]

The term Atheist carries a terrible stigmata with it

That just made my day.

For the actual OP...I think that Atheists and other non-believer types have just as much of a right to "evangelize" as members of a religion, but should be held to the same standards of respect. Some people (mostly religious) don't think about politeness or respect when speaking their beliefs, but that doesn't mean everyone else should descend to their level. As for whether they should speak out, I guess that's up to the individual.

 

[Pariah]

Personally, I don't understand what "militant" means in this situation - obviously, no one is literally up in arms over control for religion or spirituality.

In my mind, however, I cannot reconcile "militant" with "expressing one's beliefs", ergo, I do not believe they are similar in the context of atheism.

On one hand, I don't believe Dawkins and Harris, (or maybe even Hitchens, but I don't prefer to group him with those two) will achieve anything through their biting remarks about religion and belief (plus, I feel it's rude and that people should be entitled to believe what they will). However, at the same time, I realize that bold words and militant statements are required to progress secular beliefs and secular thinking. Radicals always appear first, because they are radical relative to the paradigm; moderates come later.

 

[Kungfuzed]

We're a disorganized bunch. Some have compared organizing atheists together to herding cats. How would you suggest Atheists speak out? Each one individually? Perhaps standing on a crate on the sidewalk wearing a sign that says "The end of Religion is near!". How do you think we should sell our story? What kind of spin can we put on Atheism that would be more sensational than a pulpit pounding fire and brimstone preacher? What book should we preach from? How will we maintain our converts and keep them from falling into another religion? Who will be our leader? Should I follow the guy with the shoe or the Holy Gourd of Jerusalem? Should we have pamphlets? Videos? Missionaries? TV Commercials?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you feel that non-theists should just shut up and standby, or should they stand up and speak out for their "Beliefs" (Or lack thereof?)

It depends, but one thing's for sure: they should avoid asking simplistic questions.

 

[Pariah]

It depends, but one thing's for sure: they should avoid asking simplistic questions.

What do you think non-theists should do?

 

[Prometheus]

people should be entitled to believe what they will

Of course they should, but Dawkins and Harris seem to be fighting against those who act negatively because of those beliefs. That's what most of us are doing, I think. I challenge Christianity and Islam most because they have the most people acting in a negative way because of them. I don't challenge Buddhism and Deism because they don't cause harm to society.

 

[Pariah]

Of course they should, but Dawkins and Harris seem to be fighting against those who act negatively because of those beliefs. That's what most of us are doing, I think. I challenge Christianity and Islam most because they have the most people acting in a negative way because of them.

Indeed, I understand that.
Personally, I find I myself give credence to religion simply for being religion, that is, sacred. Logically speaking, if someone holds beliefs against a positive, forward-moving, society, we generally don't listen to them and they fall away from any limelight that they may have been given. Religion, on the other hand, however, receives "Get Out of Jail Free" passes, if you will. It seems hard to me, to tell someone that their core beliefs cause problems.

 

[Prometheus]

Indeed, I understand that.
Personally, I find I myself give credence to religion simply for being religion, that is, sacred. Logically speaking, if someone holds beliefs against a positive, forward-moving, society, we generally don't listen to them and they fall away from any limelight that they may have been given. Religion, on the other hand, however, receives "Get Out of Jail Free" passes, if you will. It seems hard to me, to tell someone that their core beliefs cause problems.

Well, we should both learn to stop respecting these things. We, as a society, have always been taught not to question these things because people hold them sacred. It's not intellectually honest. I respect people, not beliefs. People have become angry with me on more than one occasion for stating this, but it needs to be said.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What do you think non-theists should do?

To the extent that the question is meaningful, pretty much what theists 'should' do.

 

[Pariah]

Well, we should both learn to stop respecting these things. We, as a society, have always been taught not to question these things because people hold them sacred. It's not intellectually honest. I respect people, not beliefs. People have become angry with me on more than one occasion for stating this, but it needs to be said.

It feels as if I'm a Christian, genuinely concerned for the state of someone's soul, so much in fact, that I need to reveal the truth of Christ at the price of religious plurality.

To the extent that the question is meaningful, pretty much what theists 'should' do.

Right - as in, we really shouldn't have to do anything? I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

I am at base really an atheist, I just use the label "Satanist" because it amuses me, I understand there is a want and need to come out of the gate fighting, been there before (still am) but what is more useful to the overall goal?
Some want to divide the ideas of Religion and politics as if they are seperate entities but to me religion is not just belief in a "God" or "goddess" or whatever else, it is a slavish mentality to an idea (mythology does not have to be involved) Communist party members believed in a "god", it was the state, it doesn't matter. I believe that stasis of the mind is the true enemy, and it is the destruction of the dependency on it and that is my overall goal, it's never perfect, it may never be completely useful, but I play my role and attempt to refine it. It doesn't always have to be the head on approach though passions demand you to approach that way there are numerous, more subliminal ways to infiltrate and affect, focus your energies on more productive goals according to what you believe and with an understanding of the world around you.- Just my take

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I think they are funny. All they do is complain and ignore the things that really matter. They remind me of the noises my aunt's chickens made when they chased after the green grapes I would toss into their coop. (Read A Guide for the Perplexed, by E.F. Schumacher)

 

[Fredx10]

I'm not an atheist because I don't want to associate myself with any group born of religion. If I must believe in something, I believe in truth, rational thought, freedom, integrity and love. When my friends cross the line between the rational and the irrational by speaking of "God" and prayer and other fantasies, I gently inform them that I cannot continue the conversation unless we stay real. They either comply or they don't. I don't put them down, but I let them know that I won't participate in hysteria. As far as public advocacy for "atheism" goes, good luck. The militancy comes from the other side. Any public forum on atheism will be met with bomb threats and assaults in the parking lot. None of us can prove that "God" doesn't exist, while believers believe that they have adequate "proof" that he does. They can't be talked out of it, so save your breath. Don't let atheism become yet another religion. Keep it personal. You'll find others who think the way you do, and there's your solace.

 

[yossarian22]

You have the right to be an *******, regardless of what you believe

 

[Runt]

I'll admit, militant/evangelical atheism annoys me to no end. Although I agree with many antitheists that religion can be harmful , that at times humans can be better off without it, and that there are views about the universe that make more sense than theism, I cannot for the life of me disprove the notion that God exists. I can't do it, and because I can't do it, I don't feel I have a right to try to actively go around ridiculing and trying to squash other people's unprovable beliefs and replace them with my own. Without proof, that's all militant/evangelical atheism is: an unprovable belief that God does not exist. I think it's a more valid belief (because a lack of proof lends itself better toward the argument that something isn't true than that it is), but not so much so that I have the right to try to eradicate another unprovable belief.

 

[Phil Lawton]

(Chanted at high volume)

"What do we want?"

"Nothing!"

"When do we want it?"

"Um, anytime, really...."

I don't understand what a militant non-belief would be. I don't get militant about the non-existence of UFOs, leprechauns or unicorns at the bottom of my garden, so how could I be militant about the non-existence of a god or gods?

 

[Runt]

(Chanted at high volume)

"What do we want?"

"Nothing!"

"When do we want it?"

"Um, anytime, really...."

I don't understand what a militant non-belief would be. I don't get militant about the non-existence of UFOs, leprechauns or unicorns at the bottom of my garden, so how could I be militant about the non-existence of a god or gods?

Militant atheists don't usually stop with non-belief. Instead, they tend to hold strong convictions that religious beliefs and institutions are harmful to human individuals and society, and should therefore be exposed as damaging and false. That is why they are passionate in their non-belief and in their efforts to convert others to it.

 

[Buttercup]

This is for Atheists, Naturalists, and Non-Theists in general. What are your thoughts on Militant Non-Belief. By Militant I mean aggressive, as in challenging religion in the public sphere (Not Violent

I'd be happy if they'd be just a bit less grumpy.

 

[Phil Lawton]

Militant atheists don't usually stop with non-belief. Instead, they tend to hold strong convictions that religious beliefs and institutions are harmful to human individuals and society, and should therefore be exposed as damaging and false. That is why they are passionate in their non-belief and in their efforts to convert others to it.

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?