Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheist attitudes.
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 16 of 121 (521174)
08-26-2009 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-25-2009 7:30 AM


Does it concern you as a none-believer that someone could hold such spite for such a benevolent creature as this lady?
Does it concern YOU that The Westboro Baptist Church hates American soldiers? Pickets and protests, wishing death upon them? Spews hate against homosexuals? Just look at the site name for crying out loud.
I think this to be a tad more "militant" than some snarky Youtube comments.
Care to comment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2009 7:30 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 17 of 121 (521212)
08-26-2009 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-25-2009 7:30 AM


Benevolence
The road to tyranny is paved with just such benevolence. I'd rather an enemy with a gun the a Bible: less insidious.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2009 7:30 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 08-26-2009 2:46 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 18 of 121 (521229)
08-26-2009 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by lyx2no
08-26-2009 1:53 PM


Re: Benevolence
The road to tyranny is paved with just such benevolence. I'd rather an enemy with a gun the a Bible: less insidious.
Wars of ideas are more difficult to fight than battles with guns, but there tend to be fewer casualties.
The problem isn't the Bible or the proselytizer alone, per se. The problem is the fundamentalist who decides he's going to use a gun after all. The problem is the extreme popularity of Christianity in general allowing public opinion to sway too many elected officials into acting in accordance with the majority rather than what the law says. The problem is the commonality of theistic beliefs making extreme views like Creationism sound reasonable to otherwise moderate people who in all other cases would just as soon leave science education to the scientists. The problem is a lack of education in critical thinking and logic allowing arguments from emotion to rule the day rather than considering even for a moment where the actual facts and evidence lie. The problem is a discomfort many people have with admitting that faith isn't based on evidence and that what is acceptable to one person may not be acceptable to others and neither sincere belief nor personal acceptance make something objectively true.
It's easy to forget that, for most of us, our parents were never taught about evolution until they took a college-level biology class - which means that many of them were never taught about evolution at all. Popular media like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Pokemon, and various other movies and TV shows, as well as religious leaders who've never spent a day in a biology classroom have provided more "education" on evolution than scientists have. Even many teachers in public schools don't have a better understanding of evolution than what TV presents.
It's not surprising that people have such skewed views on what the Theory of Evolution does and does not predict. Given that most people think that Leonardo, Raphael, Donatello, and Michelangelo are examples of "mutants," and that like in Pokemon organisms evolve into new organisms over the course of their own lifespans, is it any wonder we are confronted with questions like "why are there still monkeys around" or "why don't monkeys turn into people?"
Questions we find ridiculous are simply the result of the only education on the subject matter most people have received.
Issues over the attitudes of atheists and attitudes towards atheists suffer from similar problems: most Christians don't know any atheists...and if they do, they're almost always unaware of it. Their most significant exposure to atheism comes from their Bibles and pastors who teach them that atheists are people to be feared, that we're part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, and we're coming for their children. That we're godless heathens trying to ruin America/England/The World. Those fears are occasionally confirmed when they see comments on the Internet like what mike posted in the OP - remember, they're not looking for evidence or trying to understand, they're looking for confirmation of what they've already been told.
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.
They're not insidious. They see us as insidious, because they never know if their neighbor, their friend, their family member, their elected official, their postman, the cop that pulls them over, might be one of us, the ones who they honestly fear are working on behalf of Satan, the ones who think their core beliefs, part of what defines their lives, are "a little crazy." They aren't sneaking. It's hard for the overwhelming majority to be secretive. We know who and where they are, and while their attempts to invade secular education may seem underhanded to us, they're really just ill-informed, and convinced that their personal beliefs are facts being withheld from future generations by that Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Almost everything they've done has been in the public eye, out in the open. Only the real bastards, the "liars for Jesus" and the televangelist conmen like Peter Popoff count as insidious...and they're a tiny minority.
I'd much rather an opponent with a Bible. We both have a higher chance of walking away from any encounter, and I have a chance at convincing him that at the very least atheists aren't evil baby-eating Satanic monsters, like his pastor told him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by lyx2no, posted 08-26-2009 1:53 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 3:02 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 25 by Drosophilla, posted 09-09-2009 3:05 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2009 2:14 AM Rahvin has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 19 of 121 (521234)
08-26-2009 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rahvin
08-26-2009 2:46 PM


Re: Benevolence
what is acceptable to one person may not be acceptable to others and neither sincere belief nor personal acceptance make something objectively true.
I still don't get this one, why certain groups of people feel the need to tell everyone else how to believe. Atheists just as well think the mindset of creationists and militant religious zealots are wrong. The difference is, we don't press our beliefs on people who think differently. We encourage people to think differently. We try to enlighten you and give you our opinion on why we think your worldview stinks. But for the most part, sites like this, and discussions like this, are started by the religious in an effort to push a certain way onto others. Atheists, for the most part, are just fine and dandy with you getting dressed up Sunday morning for church. I know I don't care. Just don't tell me I'm blatantly wrong for my worldviews.
atheists aren't evil baby-eating Satanic monsters, like his pastor told him.
Wait a minute......they're not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 08-26-2009 2:46 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-31-2009 1:40 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 20 of 121 (521715)
08-28-2009 4:50 PM


NO U
I think the only answer you can give besides pointing out that, hey, there are plenty of violent, militant theists who have actually killed people they disagree with over cartoon pictures, books and films intended to educate, and that youtube comments (whilst vicious and deplorable) are hardly of the same caliber, is NO U or SO I HERD U LIEK MUDKIPS since it's not actually that useful a thing to talk about.
atheists may get insulting, theists do too, but don't go pulling out the whole "you bunch of X hating Y-ists killed all my Z's", you'll just Godwin the thread from the very first sentence.

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 21 of 121 (521779)
08-29-2009 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-25-2009 7:30 AM


However...
These people are not true atheists Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2009 7:30 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 22 of 121 (521878)
08-30-2009 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-25-2009 7:30 AM


Mike,
It only confirms scripture, to me.
How does some people being nasty confirm sripture? I could just as easily quote all the you-tubers that look forward to Dawkin's et al. burnin' in hell & say it just confirms atheism.
Honestly Mike, with logic like this no wonder you are so vulnerable & easy pickings for religion.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2009 7:30 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 23 of 121 (521884)
08-30-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-25-2009 7:30 AM


mike the wiz:
quote:
Does it concern you as a none-believer that someone could hold such spite for such a benevolent creature as this lady?
You mean like Chris Broughton, the guy who brought an assault rifle and a handgun to an Obama rally? Turns out the day before, he went to a sermon by Steven Anderson, who told the congregation to "pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell."
Note, Broughton told Anderson what he was going to bring guns to the rally and Anderson did not stop him. Instead, Anderson encouraged him and publicized it on his blog.
Question: If you respond in any way that indicates that you are not responsible for Anderson's actions (including trotting out the "No True Scotsman" fallacy), then we shall have to ask you why you seem to think that atheists are responsible for the statements of internet loons.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2009 7:30 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 24 of 121 (522027)
08-31-2009 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by hooah212002
08-26-2009 3:02 PM


Re: Benevolence
hooah writes:
Atheists just as well think the mindset of creationists and militant religious zealots are wrong. The difference is, we don't press our beliefs on people who think differently. We encourage people to think differently. We try to enlighten you and give you our opinion on why we think your worldview stinks. But for the most part, sites like this, and discussions like this, are started by the religious in an effort to push a certain way onto others. Atheists, for the most part, are just fine and dandy with you getting dressed up Sunday morning for church. I know I don't care. Just don't tell me I'm blatantly wrong for my worldviews.
Well stated. It reminds me of the two related studies done by Bob Altemeyer where he divided a sample of people into three groups. In one group of people he presented a scenario where Christanity would be remade mandatory in public schools. In the second group the scenario was you live in a Muslim country and Islamic education and prayer is going to be made mandatory in your child's school. The third group was presented with the scenario that from kindergarten on, students would be told that there is no god and any such beliefs would be mocked as superstitious.
Well, as you might predict, atheists and most religious people found all three scenarios distasteful and a violation of basic freedoms. Fundamentalist Christians, on the other hand, overwhelmingly found #1 to be fair while rejecting #2 & 3. That itself is no surprise. When questioned for details about the fairness of #1 given that children of other/no faiths are there, the common answer was that this is a Christian nation and if they do not like it they can go to private school or leave the country.
But in scenario #2 they said it was wrong to force Islam on a child of another faith because the rights of minorities must be respected in a democracy. What would surprise the fundamentalist, I believe, is that atheists did not support mocking of faith in public schools because they believed it violated the rights of the parents.
The second study done by Altemeyer presented people with the situation of a Christian teen having a crisis of faith and approaching an Atheist family for advice. He also reversed that situation to another group. Again, atheists and most Christians said they would refer the teen in both situations to another person, their parents, a friend, etc. i.e. they did not think it their place to discuss these issues with someone else's child. Fundamentalist Christians 100% said they would do everything in their power to convert the atheist teen, even taking them covertly to church. And, obviously, 100% agreed it was a violation for an atheist parent to deconvert someone else's kid.
Sorry for the long Authoritarian rant, I recently made a two-part video series on these studies on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/user/Lithodidman). And using that shameless self-promotion to seque to the OP....
I completely agree with most of you here, one the problems on YT (and the net in general) are trolls, whether they purport to be atheists, Christian, etc.A number of them are just omni-nasty, putting foul comments on anything they see. One particularly obnoxious troll is a 'Christian' (his description, certainly not by any definition I am aware of) that has now at least six accounts that are solely for the purpose of complimenting his own videos from his main channel and giving the illusion of support when he insults or bullies videos. Sad thing is the man is 40, not 17.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 3:02 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 25 of 121 (523331)
09-09-2009 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rahvin
08-26-2009 2:46 PM


Re: Benevolence
Hi Rahvin,
I'd just like to say both your posts (no.10 and no.18 in this thread) are superb. Post 10 says everthing i've felt myself re religion for years - possibly the only extra thing i'd add is that i hate the way religion is used to indoctrinate children from a very young age to warp their rationalitly for ever - i think that is as worse (maybe even more so) than physical child abuse!
And post 18 is very inspired - and i think dead on the mark. The sad thing is that once a religious belief has been internalized it is very difficult to get at that person.
I am curious Rahvin. Your profile doesn't say where you are from but i'm guessing America where it almost impossible to escape the influence of christianity but you have emerged a rational thinking atheist despite their best efforts - that cannot have been easy. I'm from the UK where christianity is very much more in the periphery - and i had the added fortune of liberal parents who wanted me to think rather than be indoctrinated - so the only religous instruction i got was the one hour per week school compulsory lesson that was not in any way 'hard core'....
...yet i've still emerged with all those dislikes you list in post 10 and that's without the doctrine being forced upon me. I can only imangine what you have felt and fought against....congrats on coming out the right side - with your sanity and rationalism intact!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 08-26-2009 2:46 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2009 3:52 PM Drosophilla has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 26 of 121 (523342)
09-09-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Drosophilla
09-09-2009 3:05 PM


Re: Benevolence
Hi Rahvin,
I'd just like to say both your posts (no.10 and no.18 in this thread) are superb. Post 10 says everthing i've felt myself re religion for years
Thanks!
- possibly the only extra thing i'd add is that i hate the way religion is used to indoctrinate children from a very young age to warp their rationalitly for ever - i think that is as worse (maybe even more so) than physical child abuse!
It's a very tough call. The formative years of childhood are so influential on our basic values and thought processes later in life that whatever you teach a child could be considered "indoctrination" from various points of view. It's difficult, however, to honestly say that parents should be prevented from raising their children in accordance with their own conscience. Were I to have children, I'd want to raise them according to my values and my beliefs and would resent the intrusion of anyone else into that process. I sympathize with religious parents at the same time that I abhor the results. I don't think there's an easy answer to this. I would agree that raising children in an atmosphere that stifles free thought and rationality to the degree that some religious teachings do does a massive disservice for those children later in life...but Christians for example would consider not teaching children about their faith an even greater disservice, as failure to adhere to their belief system results in eternal damnation.
It's quite a pickle.
And post 18 is very inspired - and i think dead on the mark. The sad thing is that once a religious belief has been internalized it is very difficult to get at that person.
Nearly impossible, in fact.
I am curious Rahvin. Your profile doesn't say where you are from but i'm guessing America where it almost impossible to escape the influence of christianity but you have emerged a rational thinking atheist despite their best efforts - that cannot have been easy. I'm from the UK where christianity is very much more in the periphery - and i had the added fortune of liberal parents who wanted me to think rather than be indoctrinated - so the only religous instruction i got was the one hour per week school compulsory lesson that was not in any way 'hard core'....
...yet I've still emerged with all those dislikes you list in post 10 and that's without the doctrine being forced upon me. I can only imagine what you have felt and fought against....congrats on coming out the right side - with your sanity and rationalism intact!
I was born in the Midwestern US to very conservative Christian parents. I was told Bible stories at bedtime rather than fairy tales, I was sent to Bible camp every summer, we prayed and read the Bible before and after every meal, etc. My maternal grandfather was an administrator at a Christian school in Michigan. Until my 20s, I was very much a faithful Christian who believed that I could speak directly with the creator of the Universe, believed that Jesus was the son of God who died for my sins, etc.
That said, my upbringing was not totally fundamentalist. My grandparents are more conservative in their beliefs than my parents, but that's to be expected to a degree. My parents did teach me to think for myself and to examine my sources, and encouraged questions. They were very accepting of my rather liberal interpretation of the Bible (ie, no literal 6-day Creation, etc) so long as I maintained belief in Jesus.
My deconversion was prompted by several wesites, including this one, that caused me to turn a critical eye to my own beliefs and their source. An absolutely necessary catalyst was moving away from home (by "away" I mean over 3000 miles), thus removing myself from the self-reinforcing social pressures of church and family. If I had remained at home or even nearby, the constant reinforcement and validation of my beliefs may have been enough to hold me.
For most people, that never happens. They remain close enough to family, or find a new religious social network after moving, and few people ever turn a critical eye to their own beliefs, especially ones as closely held as religion when one has been indoctrinated since birth.
In the end, it was a matter of evidence and the Bible itself that finalized my deconversion. The burden of proof was certainly not met by Christianity - "Faith" is supposed to replace evidence, and that no longer worked for me. The Bible also contained quite a bit that I, raised for over two decades as a Christian and reading the Bible all the time, was never even aware of - and things that repulsed me when I gave them a second thought. The slaying of the firstborn of Egypt, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood, Revelations, the killing of 3000 people after the 10 Commandments were given, the killing of children by bears of all things for insulting the baldness of a prophet, these were all things that I either never knew were in the Bible or never actually thought about beyond acceptance as a history lesson. Once I considered the ethical ramifications of all of these things (and others), I decided that even if the Christian God did exist, I could not worship such a monster.
Frankly, I was lucky. Given just a few different choices in my life, I would almost certainly remain a Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Drosophilla, posted 09-09-2009 3:05 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Drosophilla, posted 09-09-2009 4:14 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 27 of 121 (523344)
09-09-2009 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rahvin
09-09-2009 3:52 PM


Re: Benevolence
It's a very tough call. The formative years of childhood are so influential on our basic values and thought processes later in life that whatever you teach a child could be considered "indoctrination" from various points of view. It's difficult, however, to honestly say that parents should be prevented from raising their children in accordance with their own conscience. Were I to have children, I'd want to raise them according to my values and my beliefs and would resent the intrusion of anyone else into that process. I sympathize with religious parents at the same time that I abhor the results. I don't think there's an easy answer to this. I would agree that raising children in an atmosphere that stifles free thought and rationality to the degree that some religious teachings do does a massive disservice for those children later in life...but Christians for example would consider not teaching children about their faith an even greater disservice, as failure to adhere to their belief system results in eternal damnation.
Agreed, I for one wouldn't like anyone to be told what and when to teach their children. I should have made clear that it's the educational indoctrination of some school systems I disagree with. Why should one religion be forced down a child's throat in the name of cultural education..."you know we are a christian nation here and that's what we must teach you". And as I understand from reading sites such as this - the schools across much of the U.S (certainly many in the southern states) are now facing the prospect of religion in the science classes (i.e I'D taught alongside - or heaven forbid, instead of the ToE) as well as hardcore religion in the R.E lessons.
Thanks for the insight of your upbringing - it makes me marvel all the more at your successful separation from it. I've often wondered if I'd had such an upbringing whether I would have fared as well.
Really glad I've found this site - there's a lot of kindred spirits here. In my everyday life no-one around me is interested in the debate of evolution v creationism and it's fascinated me for quite a while...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2009 3:52 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 28 of 121 (523544)
09-11-2009 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-25-2009 7:30 AM


mike the wiz writes:
My prime concern isn't the interview, but the terrible hatred that seems to run through peoples veins, and spite, and poison for creationists.
As I see it, what you are referring to (with some hyperbole, it seems to me) is a natural and hard-to-control reaction that comes up when someone with an open mind, an active curiosity, and a serious drive to understand things as they really are, falls into direct communication with someone who is willfully ignorant, stubbornly disregards evidence, and thoughtlessly repeats tiresome assertions that either have no real meaning or have been soundly and frequently debunked. As you might guess from my wording, I myself sometimes have a hard time controlling this reaction.
But if you think this is a common state of mind among atheists in general, you are way too sadly mistaken. Most of us have the good fortune of rarely or never encountering people who are disturbingly inane, so this sort of reaction to them doesn't really come up, and we are able to spend our time just enjoying life and loved ones, helping out where we can, and doing our best in whatever way we can to make the world a better place.
As others in the thread have pointed out, there's no shortage of hatred being emitted by the faithful in the direction of the non-faithful. The anti-abortion camp includes some "honest to God" murderers, and they don't focus on just atheists -- anyone who doesn't accept the anti-abortion creed (or happens to be near the abortion clinic when the bomb goes off) is "fair game" in an all-too-literal sense. The latest casualty was gunned down while attending church. Does it disturb you as a believer that someone has actually committed such a crime on the basis of their own religious beliefs?
BTW, when I followed your link for the video, I found that it had "been removed due to terms of use violation." I'm sorry I missed it (and the responses).

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2009 7:30 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 29 of 121 (523549)
09-11-2009 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rahvin
08-26-2009 2:46 PM


Re: Benevolence
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:
1. vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.
and this is how the term is used regarding "militant atheists" such as Richard Dawkins.
The wikipedia article on militant atheism begins by saying:
Julian Baggini defines militant atheism as "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion" explaining that this "requires more than strong disagreement with religion - it requires something verging on hatred and is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and the second is that it is usually or always harmful"
Richard Dawkins is the prime example of a "militant atheist." Here are two Dawkins quotes from The God Delusion:
I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.
Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 08-26-2009 2:46 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mark24, posted 09-11-2009 7:27 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 34 by Rahvin, posted 09-11-2009 3:43 PM kbertsche has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 30 of 121 (523558)
09-11-2009 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by kbertsche
09-11-2009 2:14 AM


Re: Benevolence
kbertsche,
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.
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
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2009 2:14 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2009 11:04 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-11-2009 11:37 AM mark24 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024