NationStates Jolt Archive

... relying only on heresy.

Quick, call the Spanish Inquisition.

Quick, call the Spanish Inquisition.

Oh goody, now we're going to raise the dead?

Oh goody, now we're going to raise the dead?

That's HERESY, I tells ya!!!

That's HERESY, I tells ya!!!

Ye gads and li'l feeshies, what the H-E double-L hockey sticks ain't heresy these days? ;)

Ye gads and li'l feeshies, what the H-E double-L hockey sticks ain't heresy these days? ;)

Well, you've come to the right person.
As NS Goddess of Sex and Chocolate, I hereby decree that all things not in any way related to sex, chocolate or myself are heresy.

So get a Mars bar and get going!

<starts playing "The Bad Touch">

there, almighty goddess

Well, you've come to the right person.
As NS Goddess of Sex and Chocolate, I hereby decree that all things not in any way related to sex, chocolate or myself are heresy.

So get a Mars bar and get going!

Ew...Mars bar? That's not to say I don't like chocolate... I love chocolate from Leonidas! *drools*

Ew...Mars bar? That's not to say I don't like chocolate... I love chocolate from Leonidas! *drools*

Chocolate?

THIS. IS. SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rZBA0SKmQy8)!

Ew...Mars bar? That's not to say I don't like chocolate... I love chocolate from Leonidas! *drools*

Didn't know what the international equivalent of Galaxy Minstrels would be... :p

Didn't know what the international equivalent of Galaxy Minstrels would be... :p

Galaxy chocolate is delicious. :fluffle:

Galaxy chocolate is delicious. :fluffle:

I've never had it. I only get crappy Canadian chocolate here... alas.

I've never had it. I only get crappy Canadian chocolate here... alas.

I'll make sure to bring some for you when I invade Canada. :)

I'll make sure to bring some for you when I invade Canada. :)

Don't forget your parka. :p Damn nippy this time of year.

Galaxy chocolate is delicious. :fluffle:

Almost as good as sex :D

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

lol

:confused:

I never said that.

militancy is not itself a bad thing

As a general rule, yes it is. It's not only just an shitty way to go about things, but it is also nearly always counter-productive.

I'll make sure to bring some for you when I invade Canada. :)

Ah, you're all too focused on chocolate. You have to keep the balance between chocolate and sex, you know?

Ah, I guess I misread your tone in the previous post. :) My bad. But yes, you're quite right about how some religious people would do that, and without having actually read the book... kind of like how some don't like Harry Potter but never read a damn book from that series, relying only on heresy.

Ack! I hate this. I actually spoke to one of those fundies the other day, and he said, "Yeah, man. It's really evil. Wanna hear this quote from it? It says 'There is no good and evil. There is only power, and those too weak to seek it.'"

Of course, he was completely ignorant of the fact that it was the villain who said that. I made sure to inform him of that, too.

Ack! I hate this. I actually spoke to one of those fundies the other day, and he said, "Yeah, man. It's really evil. Wanna hear this quote from it? It says 'There is no good and evil. There is only power, and those too weak to seek it.'"

Of course, he was completely ignorant of the fact that it was the villain who said that. I made sure to inform him of that, too.

But we can't let facts get in the way of this, can we? Facts are inconvenient when trying to demonise something, anything.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~ Stephen Roberts

Militant atheists are different because they can make snappier quotes. :p

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They support completely opposite ideas, but are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies. They both have pretty strong contempt for the other side, both are completely convinced they are right, both bind together as a "community", both seek to prosetlyze and export their beliefs, and both seek to reduce the influence of the other. So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?

I just want to point out that pure Christian fundamentalism is not the same as the anti-abortion wackos who think that the world is less than a couple of thousand years old. There are Christian fundamentalists who are the opposite of that. They are an intellectual religious movement concerned with the fundamentals of christianity. Despite what you may have heard the fundamentals are not about abortion, instead they are about the ressurection and the real fundamentals of their faith. I have a lot of respect for that because it seems to be well almost Jewish and as a Jew I respect religious folks who are willing to disagree with a whole bunch of fine points if we can all just more or less agree to the basics.

As a general rule, yes it is. It's not only just an shitty way to go about things, but it is also nearly always counter-productive.

not if history is anything to go by. militancy gets shit done, while playing nice and keeping your head down gets you stepped on.

not if history is anything to go by. militancy gets shit done, while playing nice and keeping your head down gets you stepped on.

But the floor can be rather comfortable, unlike a bayonet up the rear.

They are an intellectual religious movement

hahahaha

not if history is anything to go by. militancy gets shit done, while playing nice and keeping your head down gets you stepped on.

Yeah. We've tried that one for a couple thousand years, and it hasn't worked out too well, and history shows a consistent pattern.

Blacks didn't end segregation by asking nicely. Gays didn't get to be where they are (admittedly still distrusted and discriminated against, but not as much as in the past), by saying "could you pretty please treat us like people, maybe? If it's okay with you? Oh? It's not? Okay then."

Even Dr. King much more "militant" than atheists are today. We can't just sit down and let the theists have their way with us, or we'll be stuck in the position we are forever. Now, I certainly don't think it needs to be violent resistance(we'll leave crusades and jihads and inquisitions for the theists), which is why I am hesitant to use the word "militant," but we certainly do need to be assertive in securing legal and social equality.

even if true (and its not), that is totally not the reason at all in the slightest, and i wonder how you could possibly think that it is.



one pushes a useful and reliable method of belief formation, the other pushes a harmful and stupid one.
more generally, one is right and one is wrong.
Wow...just..just...wow.....! :|

I really, REALLY hope that you were actually trying to make a point, to help back his argument.. If not, then.... :rolleyes:

Wow...just..just...wow.....! :|

I really, REALLY hope that you were actually trying to make a point, to help back his argument.. If not, then.... :rolleyes:

what's 'wow' about it? "this book is literally true, and anything that disagrees with it is wrong" is a harmful and stupid method of belief formation that ought be rooted out of society and replaced with using actual evidence and logic. this point is trivially true, and ultimately unarguable.

But the floor can be rather comfortable, unlike a bayonet up the rear.

well, sure, it is usually somewhat safer and more comfortable to make peace with the oppressors. but justice is to be found in opposing them.

http://remiq.net/static/img/remiq.net_3374.jpg

http://remiq.net/static/img/remiq.net_1893.jpg

Well I think the major difference is that we atheists are right and you theists are wrong.

Well I think the major difference is that we atheists are right and you theists are wrong.

Stop trying to shove your opinion down people throats... See this is why Atheists=Theists

As I said before they pull the same shit.

Atheists=Theists

No they don't. There are vastly more of the latter. Hence inequal.

Stop trying to shove your opinion down people throats... See this is why Atheists=Theists

As I said before they pull the same shit.

And this is why people like you hate themselves. You take this kind of shit seriously.

And this is why people like you hate themselves. You take this kind of shit seriously.

How does that make people hate themselves?

Stop trying to shove your opinion down people throats... See this is why Atheists=Theists

As I said before they pull the same shit.

Only they're not, really.
When was the last time you climbed out of bed to answer the door at 8am on a Saturday, only to find a cheery atheist standing there handing out pamphlets and wanting to talk to you about Richard Dawkins?
When was the last time you wanted to go shopping and there was an atheist nutcase at the entrance with a megaphone, telling you it's wrong to buy bibles and you ought to fall to your knees this instant and repent?
When was the last time you wanted to go to church and there was a crowd of atheists refusing to let you inside?

Stop trying to shove your opinion down people throats... See this is why Atheists=Theists

As I said before they pull the same shit.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

THAT is what you think constitutes "shoving opinions down people's throats"?

If you really believe that, then I think you just proved my case for me. Because if you're really that freaking sensitive, then you really must be used to having your beliefs coddled and protected. You must be used to having essentially no atheism forced on you at all, ever, if THAT is what you react so strongly do.

Because, see, as an atheist, I've been forced to grow a much, much, much thicker skin. Most atheists have to, in my country, because we are endlessly confronted with far more intense shit than anything we've seen on this thread. After a lifetime of that you pretty much just tune out most of the low-grade stuff, and focus your attention on the emergency issues (like the people who are currently insisting on a religious test for the presidency, for example) that might literally strip you of your civil and human rights.

Ah, you're all too focused on chocolate. You have to keep the balance between chocolate and sex, you know?
I have gone over to the Chocolate Side of the Force.
http://remiq.net/static/img/remiq.net_3374.jpg

http://remiq.net/static/img/remiq.net_1893.jpg
I approve :)
Stop trying to shove your opinion down people throats... See this is why Atheists=Theists

As I said before they pull the same shit.

I do not approve :mad:

You appear to have great misconceptions about what the equals sign(=) means.

Only they're not, really.
When was the last time you climbed out of bed to answer the door at 8am on a Saturday, only to find a cheery atheist standing there handing out pamphlets and wanting to talk to you about Richard Dawkins?
When was the last time you wanted to go shopping and there was an atheist nutcase at the entrance with a megaphone, telling you it's wrong to buy bibles and you ought to fall to your knees this instant and repent?

A happy little country comes to mind, the USSR... just because it doesn't happen in America doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere.

A happy little country comes to mind, the USSR... just because it doesn't happen in America doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere.

Any evidence that it happened in the USSR? Don't worry when you can't find any, nobody expects you to. Because contrary to what some people seem to think the USSR was not some kind of atheist theocracy. Stalin had a personality cult that other religions were getting in the way of, that's all.

A happy little country comes to mind, the USSR... just because it doesn't happen in America doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere.

Really? They go from door to door evangelising? They forcefully stopped people from entering churches? They went demonstrating for atheism?

News to me, really.

Oh, and just in case it has passed you by until now : That country doesn't exist any more.

Really? They forcefully stopped people from entering churches?

YES!!!!


Oh, and just in case it has passed you by until now : That country doesn't exist any more.

I was going to say something sarcastic, but yes I do know the USSR doesn't exist anymore, and that's not really relevant to the conversation right now.

YES!!!!
Because it was an Atheist theocracy or because Stalin wanted people to worship him?

YES!!!!


I'd like to see a source on that.
Having spent some time in the former GDR, I can say that religion was discouraged, but by no means outlawed. Considering that both Ulbricht and Honeker both did their utmost to copy the Sovjet system, I find it difficult to believe they would have been more lenient in that particular aspect.


I was going to say something sarcastic, but yes I do know the USSR doesn't exist anymore, and that's not really relevant to the conversation right now.

I think it has.
The post I was answering claimed that both militant atheists and militant Christians behave in the exact same way, both "try to shove their opinions down other people's throats". If I argued that Christians are worse cause they used to burn witches, you'd be right to point out that past behaviour isn't relevant to the topic. And neither is past behaviour of atheists.

Because it was an Atheist theocracy or because Stalin wanted people to worship him?

It continued before and after Stalin. The policy of the USSR was atheism with no toleration for religion. The lone exception is Islam in the Central Asia states, which was tolerated for largely political reasons (i.e. they feared a revolution if they outlawed Islam). But yes, everywhere else, all forms of religion were banned.

I would hardly call it an Atheist theocracy, but it operates on the same precept as a theocracy, which is denying the right of freedom of worship.

It continued before and after Stalin. The policy of the USSR was atheism with no toleration for religion. The lone exception is Islam in the Central Asia states, which was tolerated for largely political reasons (i.e. they feared a revolution if they outlawed Islam). But yes, everywhere else, all forms of religion were banned.

I would hardly call it an Atheist theocracy, but it operates on the same precept as a theocracy, which is denying the right of freedom of worship.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a source on atheists going from door to door evangelising in the USSR...

I'm still waiting for you to provide a source on atheists going from door to door evangelising in the USSR...
And I'm waiting for a source that shows the prohibition of worship was because of enforced ATHEISM, rather than, you know, STALINISM. (Which is a bit different.)

I'd like to see a source on that.
Having spent some time in the former GDR, I can say that religion was discouraged, but by no means outlawed. Considering that both Ulbricht and Honeker both did their utmost to copy the Sovjet system, I find it difficult to believe they would have been more lenient in that particular aspect.



I think it has.
The post I was answering claimed that both militant atheists and militant Christians behave in the exact same way, both "try to shove their opinions down other people's throats". If I argued that Christians are worse cause they used to burn witches, you'd be right to point out that past behaviour isn't relevant to the topic. And neither is past behaviour of atheists.

Well, I've never been to Europe, but being in AP German, I've had to spend considerable time studying the DDR. Actually, I should be writing a report on it right now...
Anyway, my point is the DDR has never as extreme as the USSR. Religion was discouraged, not banned in the DDR and their big fear from the west seems to have been "droggen"

"Mehr Droggen Tode im West heute. Der BRD ist so schlect" Or something along those lines.

Linky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#Under_Communist_rule

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_v86/ai_4618399

It continued before and after Stalin. The policy of the USSR was atheism with no toleration for religion. The lone exception is Islam in the Central Asia states, which was tolerated for largely political reasons (i.e. they feared a revolution if they outlawed Islam). But yes, everywhere else, all forms of religion were banned.
Source?

I would hardly call it an Atheist theocracy, but it operates on the same precept as a theocracy, which is denying the right of freedom of worship.
Not what a theocracy is AT ALL.
And I'm waiting for a source that shows the prohibition of worship was because of enforced ATHEISM, rather than, you know, STALINISM. (Which is a bit different.)

Me too.

Well, I've never been to Europe, but being in AP German, I've had to spend considerable time studying the DDR. Actually, I should be writing a report on it right now...
Anyway, my point is the DDR has never as extreme as the USSR. Religion was discouraged, not banned in the DDR and their big fear from the west seems to have been "droggen"

Linky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#Under_Communist_rule

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_v86/ai_4618399

Short question to get your brain in gear : If religion was banned in the USSR, why do you think that by the end of Stalin's reign, 22,000 orthodox churches were open in the USSR?
Religion was sanctioned and discouraged, but by no means banned in the USSR.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union#Policy_toward_religions_in_practice

Oy. I've already covered this topic ON THIS THREAD.

The suppression of the Orthodox Church wasn't about wanting to tear down religion, it was about wanting to remove the competition. Yes, I know, they SAID they were trying to wipe out religion. But they also said a lot of things that ended up not being precisely true, didn't they? The reality is that a lot of times leaders who want to be worshipped will remove any other possible worship targets. That's not atheism.

Oy. I've already covered this topic ON THIS THREAD.

The suppression of the Orthodox Church wasn't about wanting to tear down religion, it was about wanting to remove the competition. Yes, I know, they SAID they were trying to wipe out religion. But they also said a lot of things that ended up not being precisely true, didn't they? The reality is that a lot of times leaders who want to be worshipped will remove any other possible worship targets. That's not atheism.

The way that communism was treated as salvation, I would venture to say it was the fight of a philosophy-turned-religion against the established religion, really.

Source?


Not what a theocracy is AT ALL.


Me too.

Read the links I just posted.

And, like I said, it's theocratic-like because of its denial of freedom of worship, i.e. a common characterstic it holds with theocracy. If I believed that was the definition of theocracy, then I would've called the USSR an atheist theocracy (which I didn't, FYI).

Read the links I just posted.
I would, but instead I read Bottle's posts, and Cabra's posts, and figured that your links are either wrong, or don't say what you think they say. In either case, I don't think there's much point reading them.

And, like I said, it's theocratic-like because of its denial of freedom of worship, i.e. a common characterstic it holds with theocracy. If I believed that was the definition of theocracy, then I would've called the USSR an atheist theocracy (which I didn't, FYI).

And because you think it's theocratic-like, how does that make it atheist?

i am an anti-racist. a militant anti-racist. am i just as bad, bigoted, and evil as the klan? is the fact that i believe my anti-racist cause is right and just a sign of mental illness? does the fact that i wish to eradicate racism make my anti-racism wrong?

Wrong? Not in the slightest. Yet the point is still a good one. Do you hate racists? Would you stand in a rally, pointing at them and shouting obscenities? Would you carry placards denouncing racists as thugs not worth their place in life?


I know I would, I would do all this knowingly and gladly all the time realiseing that myself and Fred Phelps and his plebs hold at least this much in common.

Oy. I've already covered this topic ON THIS THREAD.

The suppression of the Orthodox Church wasn't about wanting to tear down religion, it was about wanting to remove the competition. Yes, I know, they SAID they were trying to wipe out religion. But they also said a lot of things that ended up not being precisely true, didn't they? The reality is that a lot of times leaders who want to be worshipped will remove any other possible worship targets. That's not atheism.

That's not the point. By bloating up atheism as a cause for the suppression of religious freedom, atheism has proven itself to be identical to religion i.e. equally capable in being used as a tool for oppression and war. Pure atheism isn't bad. Neither is pure Christianity, which bears similarities to anarcho-communism. Both, however, can be manipulated, twisted, and used to enduce hate, intolerance, and oppression.

Religion itself isn't bad. But it can be used to do bad things. And, as the USSR shows, the same with atheism. Any ideology, in fact, no matter, how peaceful, can be used as an agent of destruction. The fact that religion takes the lime-light is because religion is the largest and longest running ideology ever, therefore allowing it to soak up a disproportionate amount of atrocities.

Wrong? Not in the slightest. Yet the point is still a good one. Do you hate racists? Would you stand in a rally, pointing at them and shouting obscenities? Would you carry placards denouncing racists as thugs not worth their place in life?


I know I would, I would do all this knowingly and gladly all the time realiseing that myself and Fred Phelps and his plebs hold at least this much in common.

I would demonstrate agaisnt racism, and have done so. But I don't think I'd demonstrate against racists... see, in my naivity, I do believe that human beings are capable of thinking, and therefore of understanding evidence and changing their minds. So it won't do to just try and make them feel like outcasts, I'd rather present them with evidence and make them look like the fools they are, in the hope of triggering a thought process that will stop them being racist.
Naive, I know. But I can't help it.

I would demonstrate agaisnt racism, and have done so. But I don't think I'd demonstrate against racists... see, in my naivity, I do believe that human beings are capable of thinking, and therefore of understanding evidence and changing their minds. So it won't do to just try and make them feel like outcasts, I'd rather present them with evidence and make them look like the fools they are, in the hope of triggering a thought process that will stop them being racist.
Naive, I know. But I can't help it.

Heh surely though knowing that one is naive is an indication of the opposite? So I would not call you naive may I suggest the more mouth watering 'Fluffy Bunny'?

That's not the point. By bloating up atheism as a cause for the suppression of religious freedom, atheism has proven itself to be identical to religion i.e. equally capable in being used as a tool for oppression and war.
Except that has never happened, ever. Atheists have done bad things, but people haven't done bad things because of atheism
Pure atheism isn't bad. Neither is pure Christianity, which bears similarities to anarcho-communism. Both, however, can be manipulated, twisted, and used to enduce hate, intolerance, and oppression.
So can anything which creates an 'Us' and a 'Them', to some extent.

I would demonstrate agaisnt racism, and have done so. But I don't think I'd demonstrate against racists... see, in my naivity, I do believe that human beings are capable of thinking, and therefore of understanding evidence and changing their minds. So it won't do to just try and make them feel like outcasts, I'd rather present them with evidence and make them look like the fools they are, in the hope of triggering a thought process that will stop them being racist.
Naive, I know. But I can't help it.

They're more victims of ignorance than anything else. Or so I've always believed.

Except that has never happened, ever. Atheists have done bad things, but people haven't done bad things because of atheism

That's true in a sense. Pure atheism doesn't cause bad things, because atheism isn't a really a worldview, simply a refutation of God. But atheists with bad worldviews (like dogmatic communism) have those worldviews because their atheism causes them to refute a religious world view. But religion clearly has its negative streaks too, so neither are better than the other. Religion and atheism are on an equal playing field.

So can anything which creates an 'Us' and a 'Them', to some extent.

Exactly. That's the crux of my point

But atheists with bad worldviews (like dogmatic communism) have those worldviews because their atheism causes them to refute a religious world view.

So you're saying that Stalin was a "dogmatic communist" (which he wasn't) and by extension did all the atrocities he committed because he didn't have a religious world view?

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists.

In theory the militant atheists should be more honest than the fundamentalist believers. Be less inclined to state falsehoods and lies.

Sadly, only in theory.

That's not the point. By bloating up atheism as a cause for the suppression of religious freedom, atheism has proven itself to be identical to religion i.e. equally capable in being used as a tool for oppression and war. Pure atheism isn't bad. Neither is pure Christianity, which bears similarities to anarcho-communism. Both, however, can be manipulated, twisted, and used to enduce hate, intolerance, and oppression.

Religion itself isn't bad. But it can be used to do bad things. And, as the USSR shows, the same with atheism. Any ideology, in fact, no matter, how peaceful, can be used as an agent of destruction. The fact that religion takes the lime-light is because religion is the largest and longest running ideology ever, therefore allowing it to soak up a disproportionate amount of atrocities.

I think you're making the all-time-American-favourite mistake of confusing communism with atheism.
Communism declared itself a philosophy and certainly held no belief in any form of god, but that doesn't make it atheism. If you look at how it was implemented, the holidays it was given, the rituals that were instated, and the firm belief that by following communism, humanity can acheive a paradise on earth, you'll find that in reality, if has quite a lot more in common with religion than with a philosophy.

Heh surely though knowing that one is naive is an indication of the opposite? So I would not call you naive may I suggest the more mouth watering 'Fluffy Bunny'?

*puts on bunny ears and fluffy tail*

I think you're making the all-time-American-favourite mistake of confusing communism with atheism.
Communism declared itself a philosophy and certainly held no belief in any form of god, but that doesn't make it atheism. If you look at how it was implemented, the holidays it was given, the rituals that were instated, and the firm belief that by following communism, humanity can acheive a paradise on earth, you'll find that in reality, if has quite a lot more in common with religion than with a philosophy.

Communism and religion also aren't mutually exclusive.

Religious communism is a form of communism centered on religious principles. The term usually refers to a number of egalitarian and utopian religious societies practicing the voluntary dissolution of private property, so that society's benefits are distributed according to a person's needs, and every person performs labor according to their abilities. "Religious communism" has also been used to describe the ideas of religious individuals and groups who advocate the application of communist policies on a wider scale, often joining secular communists in their struggle to abolish capitalism.

religious communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism)
christian communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism)

Communism and religion also aren't mutually exclusive.



religious communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism)
christian communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism)

Well aware of it :)
However, what I was trying to say was that even in atheistic form, the way communism was implemented anywhere in the world was not as a philosophy but as a religion.

*puts on bunny ears and fluffy tail*

Kinky ;)

Kinky ;)

I told you we need more sex in this thread.

*goes looking for her fishnet stockings and high-heeled boots

I told you we need more sex in this thread.

*goes looking for her fishnet stockings and high-heeled boots

Yay Playboy Bunny Cabra!

I told you we need more sex in this thread.


*applauds*

Fungimentalist Christians and Militant Hateists should both have more sex. Preferably, with each other. A bit of lust will gloss over any differences they might have on contraception or the missionary position.

Stockings! High-heels! Consensus!

Even Dr. King much more "militant" than atheists are today.

You're painting with an awfully wide brush there. Most atheists don't act like jerks to everyone else. As such, very few would earn the term "militant atheist".

We can't just sit down and let the theists have their way with us, or we'll be stuck in the position we are forever. Now, I certainly don't think it needs to be violent resistance(we'll leave crusades and jihads and inquisitions for the theists), which is why I am hesitant to use the word "militant," but we certainly do need to be assertive in securing legal and social equality.

Of course you have to be assertive. But there's a difference between being assertive and acting much like fundies do now - making the same types of comments, painting others with the same wide brush, pretending that anyone and everyone who disagrees is destroying the world, etc. I don't think anyone is arguing that all atheists do this, but to argue that none do is ridiculous.

You're painting with an awfully wide brush there. Most atheists don't act like jerks to everyone else. As such, very few would earn the term "militant atheist".

you are either misusing the term militant or are calling mlk jr a jerk, i can't tell.

Most atheists don't act like jerks to everyone else.

Define "jerk". Many Christians for instance would consider statements like "there is little historical evidence Jesus even existed, let alone that he was the son of God" or "Creationism and ID are not scientific" to be jerkish, even though the statements are completely correct.

you are either misusing the term militant or are calling mlk jr a jerk, i can't tell.

Unless we're talking about people pulling out guns and shooting each other, we're obviously using a rather toned-down version of the word "militant."

In reference to ideological stances, I use the term when people are assholes about it. I've met religious people and atheists who were very aggressive and rude about their ideology, who think (and say) that everyone who disagrees with them is [insert insult here], who seek (albeit generally not violently) to wipe out all other ideologies.

These attitudes are incredibly counter-productive. MLK said, "We're here and we're not going to lay down and be mistreated." He didn't advocate getting rid of white people or trying to turn them black or any other nonsense. In fact, the society he envisioned was one in which people of all ethnicities could coexist peacefully and on equal grounds. If it had been otherwise, his message would have been unlikely to gain protection of civil rights for anyone.


Define "jerk". Many Christians for instance would consider statements like "there is little historical evidence Jesus even existed, let alone that he was the son of God" or "Creationism and ID are not scientific" to be jerkish, even though the statements are completely correct.

Many? I've yet to meet one in person. Now, reworded and with some further elaboration, those statements might become jerkish. For instance, "Jesus didn't exist and anyone who disagrees with me is a childish fool who shouldn't be allowed to vote!" would be a pretty jerkish and ridiculous statement. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like the contention that anyone who doesn't believe in God can't really be a good citizen....

Define "jerk". Many Christians for instance would consider statements like "there is little historical evidence Jesus even existed, let alone that he was the son of God" or "Creationism and ID are not scientific" to be jerkish, even though the statements are completely correct.

Despite not feeling either of those statements to be jerkish, I would like to point out that a statement can be both correct and jerkish without any impairment to its correctness.

Many? I've yet to meet one in person...

I envy you. I have met dozens in person, and not all of them were door-to-door religion salesmen.
It is possible that this has made me more sarcastic towards Christianity as a whole than is fair.
Then again - I believe managing their PR is not my job ;)

Despite not feeling either of those statements to be jerkish, I would like to point out that a statement can be both correct and jerkish without any impairment to its correctness.

That is debateable. I personally value truth very highly. I do have preferences for the way truth is delivered, but doing it differently does not automatically make it jerkish. I aspire to be someone to whom the message and not the messenger matters (though of course I sometimes fail, being human and all).

Unless we're talking about people pulling out guns and shooting each other, we're obviously using a rather toned-down version of the word "militant."

well, yeah. and the militant atheists are toned down even from ideological militancy. that's sorta the point.

In reference to ideological stances, I use the term when people are assholes about it.

like, for example, blocking the streets and refusing to allow business as usual until their demands are met? what qualifies as assholey? does seeking to wipe out racism make me an asshole?

That is debateable. I personally value truth very highly. I do have preferences for the way truth is delivered, but doing it differently does not automatically make it jerkish. I aspire to be someone to whom the message and not the messenger matters (though of course I sometimes fail, being human and all).

Oh I'm not just talking about delivery. For instance, would you consider walking into the observation area of a neonatal unit and remarking to the parents and family milling about that there's a small but non-zero probability that none of those children will live to adulthood? You are correct, your method of delivering the information isn't really that jerkish, but the message itself is.

well, yeah. and the militant atheists are toned down even from ideological militancy. that's sorta the point.

...except they aren't. Maybe you haven't encountered any, but they really aren't. They're pretty much right on par with fundamentalist religious people.

like, for example, blocking the streets and refusing to allow business as usual until their demands are met? what qualifies as assholey? does seeking to wipe out racism make me an asshole?

If you can't tell what qualifies someone as an asshole, that sounds more like your problem than mine.

How about telling someone that they and anyone who agrees with them should be wiped out or converted, that their children should be taken from them because they happen to have different beliefs, and so on?

I don't know why there is such resistance to the idea that atheists can be just as aggressive about their viewpoints as any religious person can be about theirs. They are all human beings. Why assume that atheists are automatically nicer, more rational, or better human beings?

...except they aren't. Maybe you haven't encountered any, but they really aren't. They're pretty much right on par with fundamentalist religious people.

names, dates of actions, publications, etc?

How about telling someone that they and anyone who agrees with them should be wiped out

names, dates of actions, publications, etc?

or converted

they should be. again, is it assholey to tell racists that they ought not be racists?

that their children should be taken from them because they happen to have different beliefs, and so on?

names, dates of actions, publications, etc?

I don't know why there is such resistance to the idea that atheists can be just as aggressive about their viewpoints as any religious person can be about theirs. They are all human beings. Why assume that atheists are automatically nicer, more rational, or better human beings?

the resistance is that there really don't seem to me to be any prominent 'militant atheists' that are "just as bad". i'm sure some guy off the street somewhere might be, but who the fuck cares? does he have a platform? is he who people are actually referring to when they complain about militant atheists?

names, dates of actions, publications, etc?

Why is publication necessary? Are you under the impression that most fundies are published or reported about in the news? In that case, what's the point in complaining about them? That makes them a really small group.

again, is it assholey to tell racists that they ought not be racists?

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about racism or even anything similar.

Well, we are talking about something similar. The idea that someone who is somehow different from you is automatically inferior in some way and thus must either be looked down upon or made to be more like you is pretty similar to racism. But that would mean that we should tell the assholes not to be assholes, not convert people to or from religion.

the resistance is that there really don't seem to me to be any prominent 'militant atheists' that are "just as bad". i'm sure some guy off the street somewhere might be, but who the fuck cares? does he have a platform? is he who people are actually referring to when they complain about militant atheists?

Um...yes, he is, at least insofar as anyone I know uses the term, so I have no reason to suspect that others use it differently unless they tell me so.

My husband, for instance, is an atheist. He will tell you point-blank that he was a militant atheist in high school. He was a complete asshole about it. He's grown out of that now and has even found a way to *gasp* build a life with someone who disagrees with him! Interestingly enough, when I read him the title of this thread his response was, "What? They're the same thing."

And, while there are some prominent religious assholes, those aren't the bulk of the complaints I hear about fundies either. I hear complaints about the people who come to your door at 8 in the morning. Do you have names and publications for everyone who does this? I hear complaints about people who vote for certain things because of their religion (do you have name and publications for all of them?). I hear complaints about posters on internet forums. And so on....

I hear complaints about the people who come to your door at 8 in the morning.

I do too. But you know, not about atheists.

Do you have names and publications for everyone who does this?

If it happens, and they're "the same," it should be demonstrable in some way.

I must disagree with you, Dem, when you say that they're ultimately the same. I never hear of a "militant atheist" doing much more than using words to attempt to convince religious people of his/her own point of view. Richard Dawkins, for example, who is oh so "militant" and "fundamentalist" simply attempts to convince people of his point of view, and he doesn't put on the kid gloves when dealing with a subject that just so happens to involve a God of some sort.

But when you look at the fundamentalist Christians, they attempt to pass laws that force their religious views upon others. They attempt to put restrictions on sexuality, and what's more, they attempt to get lies-- or at least half truths-- taught in the schoolroom.

Atheists don't try to push "there is no God" into science classes, but it's not even just a fringe group of Christians that pushes intelligent design-- it's a fairly large section of America's population. Atheists don't try to say "you must be sexually active before marriage!" into health classes, but a fairly large force of Christians attempt to get "abstinence only" education put into place.

"Militant atheists" generally don't picket clinics that don't offer abortions, but fundamentalist Christians are dangerous enough that doctors who offer the procedure need bodyguards-- and even then, their safety is hardly guaranteed.

Now, I recognize that most Christians don't do these things. They don't bomb clinics or kill doctors. They don't try to turn the country into a theocracy (but the mainstream does try to make it a fairly religion-based state). However, the people who don't do these things are generally not extreme enough to be considered fundies or militant.

Atheists, though, as soon as they attempt to convince people of their point of view in rational debate, are considered militant. Atheists who try to keep institutionalized prayer out of public schools are considered militant. Atheists who don't want to pledge to a nation "under God" are considered militant and unpatriotic to boot.

It's my view that this is a clear double standard--one clearly in the theist's favor-- and I really don't see how you can disagree.

Why is publication necessary? Are you under the impression that most fundies are published or reported about in the news? In that case, what's the point in complaining about them? That makes them a really small group.

its not. but you gotta have something. the request wasn't for all of those things, it was for anything at all.

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about racism or even anything similar.

the only way it isn't similar is that you don't recognize religious belief as something to be opposed. but the racist doesn't recognize racism as something to be opposed either. the point is that it is the content of the thing to be changed that matters, not the desire to see it changed.

Um...yes, he is, at least insofar as anyone I know uses the term, so I have no reason to suspect that others use it differently unless they tell me so.

your use is idiosyncratic, then. people who use the term predominantly mean richard fucking dawkins and others who are open about their atheism and the arguments for it and against religion, or even those that dare take christian nonsense to court. a google search shows as much. shit, this thread itself was started by somebody who uses it this way.

My husband, for instance, is an atheist. He will tell you point-blank that he was a militant atheist in high school. He was a complete asshole about it. He's grown out of that now and has even found a way to *gasp* build a life with someone who disagrees with him! Interestingly enough, when I read him the title of this thread his response was, "What? They're the same thing."

you husband's usage is out of step with the common usage as well.

And, while there are some prominent religious assholes, those aren't the bulk of the complaints I hear about fundies either. I hear complaints about the people who come to your door at 8 in the morning. Do you have names and publications for everyone who does this? I hear complaints about people who vote for certain things because of their religion (do you have name and publications for all of them?). I hear complaints about posters on internet forums. And so on....

you hear complaints about the foot soldiers and the leaders. don't even try to deny that. and yes, those particular people are named, their actions are identified. what i say is that there doesn't actually seem to be any equivalent movement or organization at all on my side.

I must disagree with you, Dem, when you say that they're ultimately the same. I never hear of a "militant atheist" doing much more than using words to attempt to convince religious people of his/her own point of view.

I rarely hear of a fundamentalist of any religion doing any more than that. When you do hear of anything more, it tends to be a matter of organization and numbers, not of attitude or goals.

It would be very difficult, for instance, to get enough militant atheists to try and block entrance to a church. Hell, it would be difficult to get enough atheists together to try and do that, even if you could convince them that they should. It would be pretty much impossible for militant atheists to get laws passed that would enforce their viewpoints, because they simply don't have the numbers. This doesn't mean that there aren't those out there who would do it if they could.

It is the attitude we are discussing here, not the results.

Atheists don't try to push "there is no God" into science classes,

Really? It's funny then how I've had militant atheists not only tell me that their point of view should be taught in the schools, but also tell me that science has proven that God does not exist. I even had one physicist tell me that he could personally provide such proof!

And all that in the response to a comment I made that, as scientists, we should make it clear that it is neither our goal nor our place to attack religion - to make it clear that neither religion nor atheism are necessary for scientific investigation.

Again, you're looking at a difference in numbers, not a difference in intent or attitude.

Atheists, though, as soon as they attempt to convince people of their point of view in rational debate, are considered militant. Atheists who try to keep institutionalized prayer out of public schools are considered militant. Atheists who don't want to pledge to a nation "under God" are considered militant and unpatriotic to boot.

Not in my mind.

In fact, I agree that institutionalized prayer should be kept out of public schools and that the pledge should be taken back to the pre-1950's version. It isn't militant at all to push for freedom of religion.

It's my view that this is a clear double standard--one clearly in the theist's favor-- and I really don't see how you can disagree.

Maybe because I don't use such a double standard, nor do I automatically assume that others do.

Unless we're talking about people pulling out guns and shooting each other, we're obviously using a rather toned-down version of the word "militant."
...
MLK said, "We're here and we're not going to lay down and be mistreated."

btw, mlk jr actually called this very thing militancy himself. in the dream speech, no less, though also elsewhere. as he said in detroit on june 23rd, 1963,
"Now there is a magnificent new militancy within the Negro community all across this nation. And I welcome this as a marvelous development. The Negro of America is saying he’s determined to be free and he is militant enough to stand up."

its not. but you gotta have something. the request wasn't for all of those things, it was for anything at all.

Most of my experience with militant atheists has been in person, and I don't necessarily know their names. There was this guy named Berl we used to game with, but we finally got rid of him. If you want his last name, I'm afraid I don't know it.

the only way it isn't similar is that you don't recognize religious belief as something to be opposed.

Strange isn't it? I *gasp* disagree with you! That must mean I'm evil, right? I'm just like a racist.

your use is idiosyncratic, then. people who use the term predominantly mean richard fucking dawkins and others who are open about their atheism and the arguments for it and against religion, or even those that dare take christian nonsense to court. a google search shows as much. shit, this thread itself was started by somebody who uses it this way.

Usage of terms is funny. I most often hear it used exactly as I use it. As such, it appears to me that, just like those who characterize all members of a religion based on a vocal minority, you are choosing a vocal minority and assuming that all or even most people who use a term use it in this way.

And, given some of his comments, I don't think it is totally unreasonable to see Richard Dawkins as a militant atheist. It's not as if he sticks to simply being open about his atheism or his arguments for it. He also resorts to insults, claims that disagreeing with him is inherently dangerous, and distorts the scientific method in exactly the same way as those who push for ID and Creationism by claiming that it can and should be used to investigate the supernatural. His comments are often very reminiscent of similar comments made about atheists.

you hear complaints about the foot soldiers and the leaders.

Mostly about the foot soldiers.

And, then, we're back to a matter of numbers. The fact that militant atheists haven't formed large organizations doesn't really change the fact that the attitudes are the same.

btw, mlk jr actually called this very thing militancy himself. in the dream speech, no less, though also elsewhere. as he said in detroit on june 23rd, 1963,
"Now there is a magnificent new militancy within the Negro community all across this nation. And I welcome this as a marvelous development. The Negro of America is saying he’s determined to be free and he is militant enough to stand up."

Interesting.

Does anyone else find it to be incredibly sad that simply standing up for one's rights would ever be described as "militant"?

I rarely hear of a fundamentalist of any religion doing any more than that. When you do hear of anything more, it tends to be a matter of organization and numbers, not of attitude or goals.

It would be very difficult, for instance, to get enough militant atheists to try and block entrance to a church. Hell, it would be difficult to get enough atheists together to try and do that, even if you could convince them that they should.

I easily could get enough atheists together to do that. Even in Georgia, I regularly meet with a freethinker group that generally has a dozen or so attendees. And that's just the people who regularly show up. To a group that started hardly a month ago. We could probably, if we really were inclined to, get twice that.

Now, I agree that I couldn't convince them that we should... because none of these people have that sort of attitude. The fact that it'd be hard to convince them that they should kinda serves my point, unless I misunderstand you.

I don't know of any atheists who would want to wake people up at 8 in the morning in the name of atheism-- indeed, that's something that wouldn't need numbers, making your argument invalid in this case. If numbers was the only reason, you'd have athevangelists, walking around ringing your door early in the morning and waking you up. But you don't.


It would be pretty much impossible for militant atheists to get laws passed that would enforce their viewpoints, because they simply don't have the numbers. This doesn't mean that there aren't those out there who would do it if they could.

It is the attitude we are discussing here, not the results.

What laws would they pass, given the power? "You must have a gay marriage?" "You must have an abortion?" What moral imperatives would they pass in the name of atheism? Atheism has no moral imperatives to pass, because it's not an ideology in and of itself, but the negation of another.


Really? It's funny then how I've had militant atheists not only tell me that their point of view should be taught in the schools, but also tell me that science has proven that God does not exist. I even had one physicist tell me that he could personally provide such proof!

Really? Even Dawkins has said that if, after being exposed to the evidence, somebody wants to be a theist that should be their prerogative, even if he thinks it's silly. Even if a few atheists do think that we should teach "God does not exist" in schools, they are proportionally fewer (relative to the general size of their populations) than the proportion of Christians who think we should teach ID.

And the thing is, they don't have to say "teach that there is no God" to be considered militant! All they have to do is publish their opinion that not only is religion factually incorrect, but it is irrational and often harmful.

And all that in the response to a comment I made that, as scientists, we should make it clear that it is neither our goal nor our place to attack religion - to make it clear that neither religion nor atheism are necessary for scientific investigation.

Again, you're looking at a difference in numbers, not a difference in intent or attitude.

But I'm also looking at how extreme the attitude must be to be classified as "fundamentalist" or "militant." If the same standard for militancy was applied to atheists as is applied to theists, there'd be almost no militant atheists.


Not in my mind.

That's great! But you have to realize that in general, any atheist who attempts to stand up for his rights is labeled militant. Unfortunately, just because you're tolerant doesn't mean that most people in the country are.


In fact, I agree that institutionalized prayer should be kept out of public schools and that the pledge should be taken back to the pre-1950's version. It isn't militant at all to push for freedom of religion.

Again, that's great! But if you said that as an atheist, most people would consider you some crazy fundamentalist. "Just say it! Stop trying to kick God out of America, you commie!"


Maybe because I don't use such a double standard, nor do I automatically assume that others do.

But most others do. Dawkins is labeled militant-- simply for stating that faith is irrational and often harmful, and publishing those opinions in books. He doesn't seek to pass laws that ban religion, and I he wouldn't even if he had the power. He simply seeks to convince people of his own point of view.

If Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris are militant, then maybe militancy is a good thing. I think debate should be encouraged in the case of religion-- and real debate, not putting on the kid gloves and treating religion with special respect, above and beyond what any other idea is given.

But I think calling them militant is a misuse of the word, because if they were at the same level of extremity, but on the other side, they'd not be described as militant at all. I really think it cheapens the word to apply it to such people, but if you must, you should apply it in the same way to anybody who publishes a book in which they fervently argue for theism.

Interesting.

Does anyone else find it to be incredibly sad that simply standing up for one's rights would ever be described as "militant"?

Yes, and that's the situation atheists are in right now. Any one of us who stands up for our rights are labeled militant. That is precisely my problem.

Strange isn't it? I *gasp* disagree with you! That must mean I'm evil, right? I'm just like a racist.

no, but you are wrong on a number of points and it would be better if you changed.

And, given some of his comments, I don't think it is totally unreasonable to see Richard Dawkins as a militant atheist. It's not as if he sticks to simply being open about his atheism or his arguments for it. He also resorts to insults

where?

and distorts the scientific method in exactly the same way as those who push for ID and Creationism by claiming that it can and should be used to investigate the supernatural.

we've had this argument before, and your position is still nonsensical. it is trivially obvious that we can empirically investigate the supernatural, if the supernatural thing alleged has empirical consequences. you reason for claiming we can't also means that we can't use science to investigate the natural either.

Does anyone else find it to be incredibly sad that simply standing up for one's rights would ever be described as "militant"?

no, that's just what words mean - hence my earlier statement that militancy gets shit done. keeping your head down just gets you stepped on.

if you want something done that is opposed by the powers that be, asking nicely doesn't work. so you need to be more militant to get it. atheism actually could do with a good deal more militancy, though we're off to a good start recently.

These are the differences:

There is a very very tiny amount of proper militant Atheists who want to ban religion and all that, a very small amount.

There is a very large amount of radical religious fundamentalist, and tend to be even more extreme and violent.

A radical religious fundamentalist may say that you are going to burn in hell forever and may be happy about that, a militant atheist will say that those that disagree with them are going to die just like the rest of the humanity, they don't believe they are going to receive any special selective preferential treatment.

Militant Atheists place more emphasis on reason and logic (even though their overall underlying premise, that it is a certainty that God does not exist and that those that do believe in him are completely wrong, may be flawed). Religious fundamentalists throw reason and logic completely out of the window.

I easily could get enough atheists together to do that. Even in Georgia, I regularly meet with a freethinker group that generally has a dozen or so attendees. And that's just the people who regularly show up. To a group that started hardly a month ago. We could probably, if we really were inclined to, get twice that.

24 people really isn't all that many when it gets down to it.

Meanwhile, does "freethinker" automatically equate to "atheist"? I've met people who think "skeptic" does, so I'm wondering about that one as well.

Now, I agree that I couldn't convince them that we should... because none of these people have that sort of attitude. The fact that it'd be hard to convince them that they should kinda serves my point, unless I misunderstand you.

It'd be hard to convince most religious people to go block entrance to an abortion clinic or to wander around at 8 in the morning trying to convert people too.

Like most extremists/fundamentalists/etc., they are in the minority.

I don't know of any atheists who would want to wake people up at 8 in the morning in the name of atheism-- indeed, that's something that wouldn't need numbers, making your argument invalid in this case. If numbers was the only reason, you'd have athevangelists, walking around ringing your door early in the morning and waking you up. But you don't.

How many of those people do you think just decided to start doing it? They're being told to do it by a hierarchy of an organized religion - something you need numbers and organization to achieve.

What laws would they pass, given the power?

Given some of the things I've heard?

- Declaring the act of taking a child to church to be child abuse.
- Teaching atheism in public schools (note: not simply refusing to teach religion, but actually teaching atheism itself).
- Denying religious people the right to vote
- Blocking personal displays of religion
- Ensuring that districting laws keep churches from being built.
- Etc.

Really? Even Dawkins has said that if, after being exposed to the evidence, somebody wants to be a theist that should be their prerogative, even if he thinks it's silly.

But then he also says that religion is inherently dangerous, even if it is not extremist.

Even if a few atheists do think that we should teach "God does not exist" in schools, they are proportionally fewer (relative to the general size of their populations) than the proportion of Christians who think we should teach ID.

Are they? Considering that accurate statistics on atheism are very hard to come by, I don't know that this is true.

It *might* be, of course, but without something to back it up I wouldn't assume it.

But I'm also looking at how extreme the attitude must be to be classified as "fundamentalist" or "militant." If the same standard for militancy was applied to atheists as is applied to theists, there'd be almost no militant atheists.

Indeed. Given the fact that there are far fewer atheists than religious people and the fact that fundamentalists are a minority among the religious, militant atheists are a minority within a minority. You wouldn't expect the absolute numbers to be high.

That's great! But you have to realize that in general, any atheist who attempts to stand up for his rights is labeled militant. Unfortunately, just because you're tolerant doesn't mean that most people in the country are.

Just because there is a vocal minority doesn't mean that most people agree with them.

Again, that's great! But if you said that as an atheist, most people would consider you some crazy fundamentalist. "Just say it! Stop trying to kick God out of America, you commie!"

Would they? I find that most people, especially when the history of the "under God" being added to the pledge is explained, either agree or have a very "meh" attitude to the whole thing.

But most others do. Dawkins is labeled militant-- simply for stating that faith is irrational and often harmful, and publishing those opinions in books.

Plenty of atheists state this and aren't labeled militant, so I doubt that this is "simply" the reason.

If Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris are militant, then maybe militancy is a good thing. I think debate should be encouraged in the case of religion-- and real debate, not putting on the kid gloves and treating religion with special respect, above and beyond what any other idea is given.

Debate and discussion absolutely should be encouraged, although a theist and an atheist will likely eventually have to realize that their beginning axioms and personal experiences are fundamentally different and that they will thus likely not reach a consensus.

Insults and belittling of the opposition should not be. Misrepresentation of the scientific method should not be. I haven't seen Dawkins arguing for some of the truly extreme things I've heard, but I have seen him do both of the above.

But I think calling them militant is a misuse of the word, because if they were at the same level of extremity, but on the other side, they'd not be described as militant at all.

Only because they're called "fundies" instead.

I really think it cheapens the word to apply it to such people, but if you must, you should apply it in the same way to anybody who publishes a book in which they fervently argue for theism.

Why would I do that? I don't think that publishing a book arguing for atheism is sufficient to apply the term.


no, but you are wrong on a number of points and it would be better if you changed.

Yes, we should all agree with you. You are, after all, omniscient, right?

He also resorts to insults where?

When he talks about people who happen to be religious. When he debates with such people.


we've had this argument before, and your position is still nonsensical. it is trivially obvious that we can empirically investigate the supernatural, if the supernatural thing alleged has empirical consequences.

No, it isn't. We can investigate the alleged empirical consequences. We can never empirically link those consequences to anything outside the universe or disprove that something outside of it exists.

In fact, this is the primary argument against ID or any form of Creationism. It relies upon assumptions that cannot be tested or falsified - namely, that the supernatural exists. Dawkins cannot use the scientific method to disprove the existence of the supernatural any more than religious people can use it to prove that existence.

you reason for claiming we can't also means that we can't use science to investigate the natural either.

Hardly. The scientific method was designed to investigate the natural. That is its purpose.

no, that's just what words mean - hence my earlier statement that militancy gets shit done. keeping your head down just gets you stepped on.

You don't think there is a difference between not being militant and "keeping your head down"?

Again, doesn't anyone else find that sad?

Given some of the things I've heard?

- Declaring the act of taking a child to church to be child abuse.
- Teaching atheism in public schools (note: not simply refusing to teach religion, but actually teaching atheism itself).
- Denying religious people the right to vote
- Blocking personal displays of religion
- Ensuring that districting laws keep churches from being built.
- Etc.



I'd like to add to that list:

-Denial of emergency fire services to religious structures. (Separation of church and state)
-Disallowing prayer to be heard in public places at any time for any reason.

(Yes, I've actually heard those.)

Things I have heard christians claim.

Atheists should not be considered US citizens.
Homosexuals should be killed.
ID/creationism should be thought as science.
Prayer in school should be mandetory.
evolution should not be thought.
Book banning/burning.


can't remember more off-hand.

Do note, I am not a puppet. My other account was Nihelm, but I forgot to login to my nation and it got deleted.

- Declaring the act of taking a child to church to be child abuse.

Depends. Does it take the form of indoctrination and brainwashing, possibly even including teaching that one should disregard certain laws - or do the parents merely introduce the child to several religions (of course including their own) while making sure he/she can make up his/her own mind later ?

In the brainwashing situation I would actually agree with the declaration of child abuse.

- Teaching atheism in public schools (note: not simply refusing to teach religion, but actually teaching atheism itself).

Only if you also teach several religions.

But then he also says that religion is inherently dangerous, even if it is not extremist.

Technically true. Doing something "because that book says so" sets dangerous precedents. The book might give wonderful advice the first 10 times, but that does not mean advice/rule 11 is also good.

Then again, it does seem to work in practice and many people seem unwilling to even consider something that requires independent thought. Some research would be nice.

No, it isn't. We can investigate the alleged empirical consequences. We can never empirically link those consequences to anything outside the universe or disprove that something outside of it exists.

prayer. if we did a study of the effects of prayer on healing and it turned out that only prayers from people belonging to one particular religion worked, and no others did, we would be insane to not link the effects to the apparently specific supernatural cause.

In fact, this is the primary argument against ID or any form of Creationism.

only if we surrender way too much fucking ground to them. the primary argument against them is that their claims are demonstrably false.

Hardly. The scientific method was designed to investigate the natural.

evidence? it seems to me that it was designed as a way to discover knowledge about anything testable, anything that empirically impacts the world.

You don't think there is a difference between not being militant and "keeping your head down"?

not much of one. what difference do you see? the third position of not caring one way or another?

24 people really isn't all that many when it gets down to it.
It's enough to block entry to a building. I could probably do that with a half-dozen for most buildings. Hell, I could do it with one person per door.


Meanwhile, does "freethinker" automatically equate to "atheist"? I've met people who think "skeptic" does, so I'm wondering about that one as well.

Strictly speaking, no. But it has that connotation. Freethinker was, in the past, mainly just a euphemism used for the non-religious. All but a handful of the people who show up are atheists, and those handful aren't very regular, and I think they're deists or pantheists.
(Note that several of us, myself included, would love for theists to show up, so we don't need to play the Devil's (or God's) advocate so often.)

It'd be hard to convince most religious people to go block entrance to an abortion clinic or to wander around at 8 in the morning trying to convert people too.

Like most extremists/fundamentalists/etc., they are in the minority.

Indeed, but I would guess, though I could turn out to be wrong, that the minority of atheists who would block entrance to churches or whatever is, compared to the size of the atheist population, smaller than the size of the equivalent class of theists relative to the theist population.


How many of those people do you think just decided to start doing it? They're being told to do it by a hierarchy of an organized religion - something you need numbers and organization to achieve.

Well, You might not be surprised to hear me say that I think that's one of the huge problems with religion. That it encourages such strict hierarchal obedience because the leaders are, after all, God's chosen representatives. You really don't get that as much with atheism, because it doesn't really fit with the concept.


Given some of the things I've heard?

- Declaring the act of taking a child to church to be child abuse.

Well, I would actually say that if you indoctrinate the child instead of presenting the evidence and allowing them to draw their own conclusions, especially if you teach them things that are outright stupid (Creationism, gays are evil, etc.) then that arguably would be child abuse. But simply taking somebody into a church? Nah. Hell, I've enjoyed church services I've been to. I think that some of the hymns are beautiful, and I've heard some sermons that I actually quite liked. And I could say the same for several of the "fundamentalist" atheists. I'm currently re-reading God is not Great, and Hitchens expresses a similar sentiment at quite a few times.

But I would agree that an atheist who said that would be comparable to the fundies.

- Teaching atheism in public schools (note: not simply refusing to teach religion, but actually teaching atheism itself).

This isn't one I've really heard, but if you have, then I agree that in this case, the atheist in question would be comparable to fundamentalist theists.

- Denying religious people the right to vote

Again, I've never heard this one seriously suggested, though I've jokingly said it before myself. But one who would say that blah blah comparable to theist fundies.

- Blocking personal displays of religion

I've only ever seen this coming from theists as a strawman. "They're banning prayer in schools! Oh my gawd!"

- Ensuring that districting laws keep churches from being built.

Not ever seen this one before, either, but yeah, that would be bad.

The thing is, yeah, if "fundamentalist militant atheists" did those things, then that'd certainly be comparable to religious fundies. The thing is, atheists who do none of those things are consistently labeled as militant and/or fundamentalist. It's a label I've taken several times myself, and I certainly don't think of myself as excessively militant. (Though I'm sure you disagree,
cause as as you can probably see, I'm not too bright and therefore most likely not a good judge of myself. :D)



But then he also says that religion is inherently dangerous, even if it is not extremist.

Well, to a certain extent, I do agree with him-- not that the moderate believer is himself dangerous, but that it encourages faith as a virtue. If faith was not seen as so virtuous, then religious fundamentalism would all but disappear. And I really can see the point, though I'm not 100% sure I agree.


Are they? Considering that accurate statistics on atheism are very hard to come by, I don't know that this is true.

It *might* be, of course, but without something to back it up I wouldn't assume it.

I admit it's personal experience, but given that I hang out with a group of people who care enough about their atheism to meet every week about it, to plan events and to put time into getting our ideas out there (but not in the annoying "wake people up at 8 AM" way, or the shout at everybody on the street way... wouldn't want to become the thing we hate. :D), I'd say that they're probably fairly more "radical" than your average atheist.

And one of the most extreme of the lot seemed scandalized when somebody even jokingly suggested a Bible book burning.


Indeed. Given the fact that there are far fewer atheists than religious people and the fact that fundamentalists are a minority among the religious, militant atheists are a minority within a minority. You wouldn't expect the absolute numbers to be high.

Apologies, I must have been unclear. I meant in proportion to the overall populations.


Just because there is a vocal minority doesn't mean that most people agree with them.

Certainly, but my experience says that theists in general are pretty intolerant of atheists. Quite often, when it's come up that I'm an atheist, previously normal, non crazy people have suddenly distrusted me and treated me differently.


Would they? I find that most people, especially when the history of the "under God" being added to the pledge is explained, either agree or have a very "meh" attitude to the whole thing.

Well, my experiences are different, but I concede that some people might do this. But I do have a slight problem even with the "meh" attitude, because it implies that atheist rights are unimportant, trivial issues.

Plenty of atheists state this and aren't labeled militant, so I doubt that this is "simply" the reason.

See, it seems to me that the moment that the atheist says that the religious beliefs are completely irrational, he gets labeled militant. If he says "I disagree with it, but it's just as logical and likely as my own belief to be true," then people are just happy with it.

Debate and discussion absolutely should be encouraged, although a theist and an atheist will likely eventually have to realize that their beginning axioms and personal experiences are fundamentally different and that they will thus likely not reach a consensus.

Insults and belittling of the opposition should not be. Misrepresentation of the scientific method should not be. I haven't seen Dawkins arguing for some of the truly extreme things I've heard, but I have seen him do both of the above.

I'll concede that insults may not be entirely polite (though I often do appreciate Dawkins's wit...), I'd hardly say it's comparable to what religious people have to do to be fundamentalist or to be militant.


Only because they're called "fundies" instead.

In my experience, people tend to use the two interchangeably.


Why would I do that? I don't think that publishing a book arguing for atheism is sufficient to apply the term.

You don't, but my experience says that most theists aren't that tolerant. :(

[SNIP]

You don't think there is a difference between not being militant and "keeping your head down"?

Again, doesn't anyone else find that sad?
I do find it sad, as I said, that anybody who doesn't keep their head down is often labeled militant.

I'd like to add to that list:

-Denial of emergency fire services to religious structures. (Separation of church and state)
-Disallowing prayer to be heard in public places at any time for any reason.

(Yes, I've actually heard those.)

I'd certainly say the atheist that said those things would be extremist, but my problem is that the term "militant atheist" doesn't only apply to such people. The way most people use it, it applies to people like Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins. Or even specifically to those three and people who read them. Under the current mainstream definition, I'm militant because I won't sit down and shut up.

Now, one thing that I do say that a lot of people really say is militant is that I say that religious organizations should not be automatically tax exempt. Yeah, non charity work they do should get tax breaks just like any other charity, but I don't like that religious organizations are "automatically" charitable.

I must disagree with you, Dem, when you say that they're ultimately the same. I never hear of a "militant atheist" doing much more than using words to attempt to convince religious people of his/her own point of view. Richard Dawkins, for example, who is oh so "militant" and "fundamentalist" simply attempts to convince people of his point of view, and he doesn't put on the kid gloves when dealing with a subject that just so happens to involve a God of some sort.

But when you look at the fundamentalist Christians, they attempt to pass laws that force their religious views upon others. They attempt to put restrictions on sexuality, and what's more, they attempt to get lies-- or at least half truths-- taught in the schoolroom.

Atheists don't try to push "there is no God" into science classes, but it's not even just a fringe group of Christians that pushes intelligent design-- it's a fairly large section of America's population. Atheists don't try to say "you must be sexually active before marriage!" into health classes, but a fairly large force of Christians attempt to get "abstinence only" education put into place.

"Militant atheists" generally don't picket clinics that don't offer abortions, but fundamentalist Christians are dangerous enough that doctors who offer the procedure need bodyguards-- and even then, their safety is hardly guaranteed.

Now, I recognize that most Christians don't do these things. They don't bomb clinics or kill doctors. They don't try to turn the country into a theocracy (but the mainstream does try to make it a fairly religion-based state). However, the people who don't do these things are generally not extreme enough to be considered fundies or militant.

Atheists, though, as soon as they attempt to convince people of their point of view in rational debate, are considered militant. Atheists who try to keep institutionalized prayer out of public schools are considered militant. Atheists who don't want to pledge to a nation "under God" are considered militant and unpatriotic to boot.

It's my view that this is a clear double standard--one clearly in the theist's favor-- and I really don't see how you can disagree.

You said what I wanted to say, but much better. Personally I'd also add that I've never heard of a contemporary (sane) militant atheist using violence because of their atheism, while in some places women are being flagellated for being raped because they live in a theocracy.

Depends. Does it take the form of indoctrination and brainwashing, possibly even including teaching that one should disregard certain laws - or do the parents merely introduce the child to several religions (of course including their own) while making sure he/she can make up his/her own mind later ?

In the brainwashing situation I would actually agree with the declaration of child abuse.

We're simply talking about taking a child to church. That could fall anywhere in your questions.

Technically true. Doing something "because that book says so" sets dangerous precedents.

So you are now claiming that all religion involves doing something "because that book says so"?

Then again, it does seem to work in practice and many people seem unwilling to even consider something that requires independent thought. Some research would be nice.

Ah, so now religion cannot require independent thought.


prayer. if we did a study of the effects of prayer on healing and it turned out that only prayers from people belonging to one particular religion worked, and no others did, we would be insane to not link the effects to the apparently specific supernatural cause.

It might be, but that doesn't mean that it would be scientific to hypothesize a cause that cannot actually be tested or falsified.

Meanwhile, the supernatural cause isn't necessary even in the situation you posit. It might be something about the way those people pray that makes the difference, without interference from the supernatural. Your solution would be to jump to "Goddidit" when there are other possibilities.

the primary argument against them is that their claims are demonstrably false.

Is it now? Prove that there is no intelligent creator. I'll not be holding my breath, but I'm sure that, when you actually do it, that there will be much ado about it in the press.

evidence? it seems to me that it was designed as a way to discover knowledge about anything testable, anything that empirically impacts the world.

"Anything testable" = the natural

not much of one. what difference do you see? the third position of not caring one way or another?

The position of sticking up for oneself in a manner that is not militant.


Well, You might not be surprised to hear me say that I think that's one of the huge problems with religion. That it encourages such strict hierarchal obedience because the leaders are, after all, God's chosen representatives. You really don't get that as much with atheism, because it doesn't really fit with the concept.

Not surprised in the least. Although I would amend your statement to refer to organized religion, I largely agree with it. The "sheep mentality" and the obvious hypocrisy of some of the religious leaders I saw were a big part of what turned me away from organized religion.

- Blocking personal displays of religion
I've only ever seen this coming from theists as a strawman. "They're banning prayer in schools! Oh my gawd!"

Oh, it is presented that way quite often (and ridiculously), but I've also seen people complain that a woman wearing hijab or niqab is somehow a personal affront to them or that anyone who wishes to wear a crucifix should keep it under his shirt or that praying in the open is somehow an affront to those who don't pray.

The thing is, yeah, if "fundamentalist militant atheists" did those things, then that'd certainly be comparable to religious fundies. The thing is, atheists who do none of those things are consistently labeled as militant and/or fundamentalist.

And religious people who don't do any of the things associated with fundies get accused of being fundies. I've been accused of it myself.

Labels quite often get misapplied.

It's a label I've taken several times myself, and I certainly don't think of myself as excessively militant. (Though I'm sure you disagree,
cause as as you can probably see, I'm not too bright and therefore most likely not a good judge of myself. )

I've seen no evidence to suggest that you're militant about atheism, Besides, you support Obama for pres., so liking you is a must, right? =)

Well, my experiences are different, but I concede that some people might do this. But I do have a slight problem even with the "meh" attitude, because it implies that atheist rights are unimportant, trivial issues.

I think it's more that they don't think it's a huge imposition. I disagree, especially given the fact that the entire purpose for adding it was discriminatory, but I can understand it up to a point.

See, it seems to me that the moment that the atheist says that the religious beliefs are completely irrational, he gets labeled militant. If he says "I disagree with it, but it's just as logical and likely as my own belief to be true," then people are just happy with it.

Well, to be fair, when a theist says that it is completely irrational not to believe in a deity, that theist generally gets labeled as a fundie, while most atheists are generally fine with someone who says, "Your experiences have led you to a different conclusion than me and that's fine."

It's sort of like how some atheists will claim that religion is necessarily "just a crutch" and some theists will claim that atheism is never anything more than rebellion against God.

When you get to the point that you're making assumptions about someone's thought process or reasons for a belief based simply on disagreement, you've stepped outside of rational discussion.

You don't, but my experience says that most theists aren't that tolerant.

Experience is often skewed towards the most extreme of any group. My guess is that most theists you know rarely even bring it up.

Now, one thing that I do say that a lot of people really say is militant is that I say that religious organizations should not be automatically tax exempt. Yeah, non charity work they do should get tax breaks just like any other charity, but I don't like that religious organizations are "automatically" charitable.

I agree with this, actually.

And, given some of his comments, I don't think it is totally unreasonable to see Richard Dawkins as a militant atheist. It's not as if he sticks to simply being open about his atheism or his arguments for it. He also resorts to insults, claims that disagreeing with him is inherently dangerous, and distorts the scientific method in exactly the same way as those who push for ID and Creationism by claiming that it can and should be used to investigate the supernatural. His comments are often very reminiscent of similar comments made about atheists.

You speak as though you've never actually cracked the cover of his book, "The God Delusion", as your statements make it very obvious that you believe he's hardline. If he were truly hardline and as militant as you're claiming here, why would be suggest that though God doesn't exist, his existence is probably?

On page 49, Dawkins makes the following assessment of some statements made by Huxley, in regards to absolute agnosticism: "But Huxley, in his concentration upon the absolute impossibility of proving or disproving God, seems to have been ignoring the shade of probability."

On the following page, page 50, Dawkins adds, ""Contrary to Huxley, I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other."

That doesn't sound hardline to me. He's suggesting that while he is a de facto atheist, though not 100%, leaving room for error, he believes that there is probability, which can be proven using scientific means.

I also find it rather amusing that he is going into the positive arguments for the existence of God, then explaining why they are not possible. Quite nice to see an examination of both sides.

Religious fundamentalists throw reason and logic completely out of the window.Religious non-fundamentalists don't? Doesn't religion always mean that one replaces reason with belief?

You speak as though you've never actually cracked the cover of his book, "The God Delusion", as your statements make it very obvious that you believe he's hardline.

No, I haven't read it. I've read his own statements and debates he's had with others, though, which is much more telling of his own position than a book that has been through the hands of editors.

If he were truly hardline and as militant as you're claiming here, why would be suggest that though God doesn't exist, his existence is probably?

I think you left something out here.

No, I haven't read it. I've read his own statements and debates he's had with others, though, which is much more telling of his own position than a book that has been through the hands of editors.

I think you left something out here.

It's very easy to take his material out of context, much like any other when presented with just certain snippets. It happens with pretty much with anything unless you have the full context.

I imagine you might be thinking of a BBC documentary that he presented, a two part one that was entitled: "The Root of All Evil". The topic was religion. Now to a person who saw only this, this appears very extreme, but after reading the first part of The God Delusion, in which he explains the reasoning for the title, in which he adds, that he doesn't feel that anything is the root of evil, I believe it may have just been a marketing gimmick.

:)

It's very easy to take his material out of context, much like any other when presented with just certain snippets. It happens with pretty much with anything unless you have the full context.

I imagine you might be thinking of a BBC documentary that he presented, a two part one that was entitled: "The Root of All Evil". The topic was religion. Now to a person who saw only this, this appears very extreme, but after reading the first part of The God Delusion, in which he explains the reasoning for the title, in which he adds, that he doesn't feel that anything is the root of evil, I believe it may have just been a marketing gimmick.

:)

Indeed, he specifically said that he very much disliked the title, but the controversy was good publicity, so the network went with it anyway.

It's very easy to take his material out of context, much like any other when presented with just certain snippets. It happens with pretty much with anything unless you have the full context.

...like an entire debate?

I imagine you might be thinking of a BBC documentary that he presented, a two part one that was entitled: "The Root of All Evil". The topic was religion. Now to a person who saw only this, this appears very extreme, but after reading the first part of The God Delusion, in which he explains the reasoning for the title, in which he adds, that he doesn't feel that anything is the root of evil, I believe it may have just been a marketing gimmick.

:)

Actually, that's one I haven't heard of. We can get the BBC over here in the states, but not when we don't even bother with getting cable.

It might be, but that doesn't mean that it would be scientific to hypothesize a cause that cannot actually be tested or falsified.

Meanwhile, the supernatural cause isn't necessary even in the situation you posit. It might be something about the way those people pray that makes the difference, without interference from the supernatural. Your solution would be to jump to "Goddidit" when there are other possibilities.

there are always other possibilities to every single imaginable explanation for every single thing in the universe and always will be. this is not a real problem.

anyway, if the effect did occur, and was linked to a certain religion, we could run a whole slew of tests to isolate the cause. in the hypothetical, what other possible solution is even remotely plausible, other than "i guess those guys have it right"? and how is the cause not being tested here?

Is it now? Prove that there is no intelligent creator. I'll not be holding my breath, but I'm sure that, when you actually do it, that there will be much ado about it in the press.

that isn't the primary claim of creationists. they make all sorts of claims about the world that are false. therefore their 'theory' which makes those predictions is falsified.

The position of sticking up for oneself in a manner that is not militant.

what does that entail? in the usage that includes 'militant atheists' and the "new militancy in the negro community" spoken of by mlk jr, militancy is precisely equivalent to doing anything other than deferentially sitting there and taking it. if you strongly espouse some position and are at all confrontational about advancing it, you are a militant under this very very common usage.

there are always other possibilities to every single imaginable explanation for every single thing in the universe and always will be. this is not a real problem.

Of course there are. That's why the scientific method is restricted to falsifiable claims. Otherwise, we'd be constantly getting stuck on explanations that we couldn't do anything with or move beyond.

anyway, if the effect did occur, and was linked to a certain religion, we could run a whole slew of tests to isolate the cause.

And all of those tests would be, as all of our tests are, restricted to the empirical - to the natural.

in the hypothetical, what other possible solution is even remotely plausible, other than "i guess those guys have it right"?

One off the top of my head - it could be a matter of how they pray. Different religions often have different methods of praying. If human beings do have some sort of ability to alter the world by praying, the method could matter quite a bit.

From the point of view of including supernatural causes, it could be that the deity in question is nothing at all like the believers think, but decided to answer the prayers anyways. Or maybe it was that some deity or deities simply liked those people better.

In fact, considering that you'd most likely be relying on the believers self-reporting to know what deity they are praying to and you can't really control the experiment in such a way as to keep others from also praying for the people in question, you can't form a very controlled experiment on this at all. There are all sorts of possible sources of error in such a study.

and how is the cause not being tested here?

The cause is being tested here. The cause, in this case, would appear to be prayer. But it doesn't test whether or not a supernatural entity is responding to that prayer - or what supernatural entity it might be. In such a case, you would be choosing to simply take the believers' word on that.

that isn't the primary claim of creationists.

Depends on the type of "creationist" you're talking to. There are plenty of people who believe that a Creator exists and created the universe without placing any particular restrictions on how. Their ideas are no more or less scientific than any others regarding the divine.

what does that entail?

The way I use it and have generally heard it used? MLK, Jr. wouldn't be considered militant at all. Malcolm X, on the other hand, most likely would be.

In fact, I think it would be rather difficult to find any significant number of people who would choose to describe MLK, Jr. as "militant", his own statement notwithstanding.

Depends on the type of "creationist" you're talking to. There are plenty of people who believe that a Creator exists and created the universe without placing any particular restrictions on how. Their ideas are no more or less scientific than any others regarding the divine.

That reminds me of this quote:

While religion can exist without creationism, creationism cannot exist without religion. -- Jerry Coyne

I hate the religious fundamentalists who are assholes to me because I don't believe as they do and the atheists who are assholes to me because I don't believe as they do equally.

Ok, I gotta admit something:
I fail to see the difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists. They support completely opposite ideas, but are completely identical in their manner of presenting it, which I thought was the reason for the opposition of the fundies. They both have pretty strong contempt for the other side, both are completely convinced they are right, both bind together as a "community", both seek to prosetlyze and export their beliefs, and both seek to reduce the influence of the other. So, I guess my question is, independent of what they believe, is there a real difference in the mindset of the two sides?

Stop both have problems with something that is essential to our lives, let's stop thinking about things that are already quite some time ago let importance to people who had nothing to eat or give more jobs so that you can live in a fullness between us.
Adios comrades!