Atheist attitudes.

quote:

---

We seem "militant" to them because the concept of not having faith challenges their entire worldview, and that's justifiably frightening. We don't even have to say much - just say "I think your beliefs are a little crazy, because you can't support them with evidence," and we look like utter monsters. How dare we call their beliefs, which they have held and cherished since childhood and into which they have invested so much emotion and time and trust, "a little crazy?" How dare we imply that their beliefs might not be true, that they might not have all of the answers, that they might not have an afterlife in heaven waiting, that Grandma is just gone forever? That very basic challenge is a world-shattering weapon of mass destruction to a true believer, and what we would consider a slightly snarky but honest statement may as well be shitting in Baby Jesus' cheerios for the outrage and insult it causes.

---

You words are very eloquent, but are also completely wrong. You describe a moderate atheist who respectfully disagrees with a theist or asks respectful questions. Virtually no-one would call this "militant atheism." The term "militant atheist" is reserved for those who are especially aggressive against theism or specific forms of it, those who are engaged in a verbal battle to wipe out religious belief.The first definition of "militant" from dictionary.com is: and this is how the term is used regarding "militant atheists" such as Richard Dawkins.The wikipedia article on militant atheism begins by saying: Richard Dawkins is the prime example of a "militant atheist." Here are two Dawkins quotes from The God Delusion: This has a militant tone which is lacking from your description above. You describe a moderate atheist, but Dawkins is a militant atheist.(And yes, I would use the same adjective for creationists who try to wipe out all mention of evolution from libraries and schools. These are "militant creationists" just as Dawkins is a "militant atheist.")Edited by kbertsche, : typo

quote:

---

Not so, I've been called a militant atheist because I wear atheist T-shirts. Yet people who indoctrinate others into their religion without their consent are often considered moderate theists. There is a chasm of hypocrisy when theists consider what is militant atheism vs. militant theism.

​

Mark

---

The T-shirt is more of a borderline issue; it depends on what the T-shirt says and where you wear it. There are cases of school kids being banned from wearing in-your-face Christian T-shirts, and these could perhaps be called cases of "militant theism." I do not see the "chasm of hypocrisy" that you claim; it seems to me that there is a fairly level playing field.

quote:

---

The real issue is when the shoe is put on the other foot. If Dawkins is considered "militant," then so should every televangelist I've ever seen, along with every fire-and-brimstone preacher. Every Christian who actively protests against gay marriage should qualify as "militant." The school board in the Dover trial should qualify.

​

Yet they don't. Nobody identifies them as "militant."

---

The key in both dictionary.com and wikipedia is "active hostility." If these folks are "actively hostile" to another group they could be considered "militant" in their position.

quote:

---

What Atheist actively seeks the abolition of religion? Even Dawkins doesn't do that.

​

Saying that a belief is evil system now qualifies as being "militant?"

---

Dawkins is "actively hostile" to religion in general and to Christianity in particular. This qualifies him as "militant."

quote:

---

The KKK is an evil organization, and the world would be better off if every member dropped dead.

​

Am I "militant" agaisnt the KKK now?

​

I haven't made any active attack on them. I haven't tried to make their opinions and views illegal, or tried to have them arrested for assembling. By all observation, my hostility is quite passive because I believe they have the right to hold their own beliefs even if they are opposed to my own. I don't think I'm "militantly" anti-KKK.

---

It sounds like you are not "actively hostile" toward the KKK. So no, you are not "militant" toward them.

quote:

---

Social perception identifies Atheists as "militant" while not applying the same label to significantly more extreme individuals.

---

So you claim. I disagree.

quote:

---

Even Dawkins doesn't meet your dictionary definition for "militant,"

---

Certainly he does. He is "vigorously active and aggressive" against God and religion. (These words do not imply any physical action--the activity can be verbal.)

quote:

---

and your Wikipedia entry is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

---

Perhaps, but it is certainly a more objective source than the hearsay evidence and subjective impressions repeated in this thread. Can you recommend a more objective or reliable source? A scientific or sociological study, perhaps?

quote:

---

The disparity is the issue. Either all people who express "extreme" views while not taking active measures against their opposition are "militant," or none are.

---

No, "extreme" views are not sufficient to qualify for the label of "militant." "Militant" requires an "active hostility."

quote:

---

According tot eh dictionary, it would appear that actual action is necessary to qualify, not just words.

---

I see no implication of "action" from dictionary.com. Exactly the opposite, in fact; they have put the "action" in definition 2."Active hostility" is largely a function of the message being communicated. Does the group in question project a positive or a negative message? Is it for or against an idea or group? Christianity has both aspects, but any "militancy" is associated almost entirely with the negative parts of the Christian message (sin, judgment, hell, etc.) Speaking of God's love, care, provision, etc. could hardly be labeled as "militant." Atheism, on the other hand, has an almost entirely negative message. Even in the name "atheism" you identify what you are against, not what you are for.So perhaps there really is a fundamental asymmetry between atheism and Christianity in regard to "militance." It is perhaps more common for an atheist to be "militant" simply due to the nature of his message.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Even in the name "atheism" you identify what you are against, not what you are for.

---

You do realize that this is absolutely wrong, don't you?

​

The prefix means 'without'. It is not the prefix 'anti', against.

​

A species which reproduces asexually is not 'against' sex or gender, it is simply 'without' separate sexes.

---

You're right--my wording was poor. But it is still true that "atheism" communicates a negative concept, not a positive one. The word identifies what you are without rather than what you are with.

quote:

---

Nope, Dawkins almost without exception is polite & considered. What he says is considered inflammatory, but frankly isn't. His message is no more inflammatory than this, "there is no evidence for fairies & therefore believing in them is illogical, moreover, the world would be a better place without believing in evidentially vacuous notions."

---

No, Dawkins is far more inflammatory and actively hostile than you describe. He claims to be "attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented," and describes God as "the Old Testament’s psychotic delinquent." This is not just a passive a-theistic unbelief, it is an intentionally inflammatory, militant, anti-theistic attack.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm saying that he is planting seeds of hate when he uniformly accuses everything religious as dangerous.

---

Except that he doesn't. He accepts there are good points to religion. And show me one instance, just one, where he can be considered to be planting seeds of hate.

---

As Hyroglyphx said, Dawkins does uniformly accuse everything religious as dangerous. And I believe this does promote hatred toward God and religious faith. How can you have read The God Delusion and not seen this? It is frequent in the book!Here are some examples (GD=The God Delusion):

quote:

---

If you replace "God of the Old Testament", with "Sauron of the Lord of the Rings" does it still sound the same?
...
If you think that this is planting the seeds of hate, that's your judgement - though I would like to see your reasoning behind arriving at it.

---

It should be patently obvious that God is completely different from Sauron, faeries, spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, cosmic teapots, etc--whether you believe in God's existence or not. God garners devotion and generates strong feeling. Many have given up promising careers in the sports or business world for a life of poverty in service to God. Many have sacrificed their lives as martyrs. This cannot be said regarding the other characters above.I haven't found a very good analogy to convey this yet, but perhaps this rewording of Dawkins will illustrate the point:"I think a case can be made that belief in the holocaust is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."
"The holocaust is one of the most unpleasant events in all fiction."
"I am attacking belief in the holocaust and anything and everything related to it."
"I have yet to see any good reason to suppose that holocaust studies are a subject at all."
"Belief in the holocaust is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument."Do you see how this could be seen as offensive and planting seeds of hate?

quote:

---

It seems to me that you think that merely vocalising a negative opinion of something equals promoting hate.

---

Absolutely not. See Message 67.

quote:

---

I assume though you believe Allah is as false a god as Artemis was in Paul's day, and an equal amount of people in devotion to Allah have done the same. That really does nothing to advance your argument.

---

Perhaps my argument in Message 67 was not clear enough, but what you say supports it well.Dawkins takes a few shots at Islam and Allah, but directs most of his salvo against Christianity and the God of the Bible. If he had concentrated mainly on Islam and Muslims, and if his books were promoted in countries with large Muslim populations, I am certain that there would have been many Muslim claims of hatred. We've seen riots caused by cartoons which were much milder than Dawkins' rhetoric.

quote:

---

Either show Dawkins is involved in hate mongering or retract your accusation.

---

I have never accused Dawkins of "hate mongering."If you disagree Hyroglyphx' claim (Message 52) that Dawkins is "planting the seeds of hate" please take it up with him.If you disagree with Modulus' sub-thread title in Message 62 please take it up with him.

quote:

---

But let's say that what you say is true: Why does it matter how emotionally attached a person is to an object? Why does the fact that you are emotionally invested in something make it "hate" to question its existence? To point out that you haven't presented any evidence of it? That your actions are actually causing harm to people?

---

Good questions! I'm not sure that I can give a convincing answer for why, but I believe it is true. If one has a very deep emotional vesting in an idea or belief, especially one where persecution and hatred already exist, he is more likely to view negative comments as promoting or contributing to hatred. I believe we see that this is true regarding Christianity, Islam, and belief in the holocaust.Perhaps some of this can be attributed to over-sensitivity (e.g. Muslims seem to riot for minor offenses that are common against Christians). Or perhaps it is due to an under-sensitivity on the part of the attackers (e.g. those who attack the holocaust).Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The holocaust analogy really doesn't work, for a number of reasons. For instance: The holocaust is an event, not an individual. Holocaust denial doesn't necessarily imply anti-semitism, but the two are empirically closely linked.

---

I agree that the analogy is not very good, but I couldn't find a better one. I want an agreed non-fiction analogy that generates very strong feelings and for which some have given their lives. I can't think of any human individuals that fit this description.

quote:

---

Your position requires that simple disagreement (and verbal, public expression of that disagreement) constitutes an active propagation of hatred - especially if the item of contention bears strong emotional connotations.

---

False.

quote:

---

I would suggest that simply making inflammatory statements in the public eye are not indicative of militancy, for the simple reason that such a loose qualification dilutes the meaning of teh word and makes the term applicable to almost everyone.

---

I agree; this is not sufficient to earn the title of "militant."

quote:

---

I think that the term "militant" should only be applied when a person takes an active, nonverbal stance against a group or belief system.

---

No, I believe "nonverbal" is too restrictive.

quote:

---

If simply expressing disagreement, even emotionally charged or possibly insulting disagreement, qualifies one as a "militant," who precisely is not a militant?

---

This is not a sufficient qualification for the term "militant."I defined and supported my usage of "militant" in Message 29. Wikipedia has a number of examples of how the term "militant atheism" is used. I believe my usage of the term conforms to common usage. You are free to disagree with common usage and to try to change it, of course.

quote:

---

Race and dogma are not interchangeable. Therefore, your substitution of the former into a discussion of the latter fails on the most casual of inspections.

---

True, race and religion are not equivalent. But race and religion are both protected against discrimination in US federal law (e.g. employment, housing, etc.). So in a discussion of predjudice, discrimination, tolerance, etc, shouldn't there be an interchangeability between the two?