I have an RSS newsfeed from Google News for articles on Atheism. As anyone who has read my blog knows, I am an atheist and atheism is one of my interests. I have noticed that many articles use the term "militant atheism". The term is usually in response to the recent books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett.
These books ARE highly critical of religion, especially Islam and Christianity, but since when does criticism constitute militancy? Perhaps, one could argue that it is fully appropriate to use the term. One of the alternate definitions of the term "militant" does include "having a fighting disposition for a cause". Certainly the books by Dawkins, Harris, et al. DO have a "take no prisioners" approach when it comes to dealing with religion.
However, I think the term is a much more sinister attempt to marginalize the criticism of religion by equating vocal atheism with terroristic forms of religion.
As an experiment, I decided to do a search of Google news using a variety of search terms that included "militant" in their name and comparing what "militant" meant when applied as a modifier to other groups.
There was no hits for the search terms "militant Christian", "militant Jew", "militant Judaism", or "militant fundamentalism". There was one hit for "militant Christianity", three hits for "militant fundamentlist", 137 hits for "militant Islam", 90 hits for "militant Islamist", and 15 hits for "militant Muslim". There were 6 hits for "militant atheism" and 5 hits for "militant atheist".
So Islam and its derivatives swamp the number of news articles in which the term "militant" is used. Browsing through the articles, I could not find a single one where the adjective "militant" was used to refer to an Islamist that argued passionately for the acceptance of Islam. Every article dealt with factions of Islam that openly advocated killing Americans, infidels, non-believers, or was in some way or another connected with terrorism.
Of the three hits for search term "militant fundamentalist", two referred to radical terroristic Islamic organizations and the other one referred to radical Sikhs in India that bomb other temples.
The one hit for "militant Christianity" referred to a story in which the Pentagon was pushing a Christian video game from the Left Behind series of books. The object of the video game is to either convert or kill all infidels.
Though atheists fall very far behind Muslims in being called "militants", they are far ahead of any other group. The six hits for the term "militant atheism" and the five hits for the term "militant atheist" all referred to vocal atheists that speak out against religion. None of these atheists have advocated killing anybody. Despite what you may have heard none of them advocate the FORCEABLE elimination of religion. They do advocate the elimination of religion, but the mechanism behind the elimination is REASON, not force.
In other words, these books argue that religion is not the great thing that everyone has been told it is. They argue that at its very core religion is an irrational belief system in which, like any irrational belief system, we would be better off if we didn't allow it to influence our lives.
This is much the same position I hold. Having said that, I would be absolutely appalled if violence were directed at religous people simply because they are religious.
Furthermore, I am against all forms of state sanctioned school prayer. But I would likewise be appalled if a student were forcibly stopped from praying in school on his own time.
I may criticize the logic of religious articles, but I would strongly object to any attempt to pass a law forbidding people from writing them.
I think Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett probably share the same views.
When we use the same adjectives to describe different groups we are implying a similarity there. But in practice there is no similarity between militant atheists and militant Islamists (or militant fundamentalists or even militant Christianity). So why are they all described as militants? It allows one to link the two without having to think much about it. The result is that one does not have to take the criticisms of religion seriously ..... the people making them are just crazy militants anyway.
That is why I much prefer the term "vocal". Vocal atheists are atheists that present their views passionately. That is REALLY what Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett are doing. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a good thing to present your views passionately no matter what they are. Dawkins et al. is not even asking that you refrain from criticizing them. They just ask you to consider them.
It seems to me that the people who use the term "militant atheist" ARE asking atheists to NOT criticize religion. Why should we give religion (and nothing else I can think of) this type of free-ride? Why is it that if a person who believes that a man was put into a temporary coma by space aliens, had a body part extracted, and from that body part the aliens made another designer human is considered pretty much whacko from the start; but if he believes that God did the same thing with Adam to make Eve that's OK?
Face it ... ALL religions have tenets that are frankly bizarre. No Christian actually believes that Hindu gods with elephant heads actually exist. But is that any less bizarre than believing that God impregnated a virgin so that he could come down to earth and be killed so that all believing in him may live?
Evangelical Christians are asking us to accept this and live our lives by what they say a book whose meaning has been debated for over two thousand years without any general consensus means. They claim this is the most important thing we can ever do. Don't you think we have a right to demand some reasonable explanatons before making such a commitment?
Vocal atheists point out the multitudinous flaws. They draw from this the conclusion that religion is NOT a good thing. That seems to be a reasonable conclusion to me. It seems to me to be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do. It is not something that should cause one to be equated to murder-acvocating fanatic.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
For such a great post
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
I like learning about different religions it is intresting to see their views. Yet I hate it when people try forcing you to agree with just their point of view or when people get extreme and say "I killed him because God told me to". Not to mention some of it is quite hard to believe, as you put. Or when according to a few religions "you can only have one religion and if you don't believe ours then you are going to have a painful afterlife", it kind of makes their statement pointless, because even if you believe in religion A which says this, religion c, d, f and t are saying the same thing. All religion does is give you a feeling that you are "watched after" or "protected", it's psychological.
...but I totally agree with what you're saying. Well reasoned post. On a side note, it always makes me a little sad to see the "militant Islamist" label attached to very small factions of Islam; it only serves to create a more negative impression of mainstream Islam, which breeds intolernace in the minds of westerners. Mainstream Islam is like Christianity in that it condemns violence and argues for tolerance and peace - but sadly, that is not the kind of Islam that is portrayed in the western media.
I am a part of my school's Atheist, Agnostic and Freethinking Association, and oh do they bash religion!
Can't people just accept each other and get along?
Exactly man, I'm a Christian I will tell you what I believe but I will not tell you I'm right no matter what you think.
If we just learn to accept each other and give each other our opinions, well I think it would be a much better place.
I also don't understand why athiests are so critical of religion, I understand that some religion is violent but not all, people can say they are that certain religion and kill in it's name but that doesn't mean the doctrine calls you to.
I think, if you think we die and nothing happens, well than what's wrong with believing when you die something does, obviously if you don't believe you will pay a price than why care if others do?
"That is why I much prefer the term 'vocal'. Vocal atheists are atheists that present their views passionately. That is REALLY what Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett are doing. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a good thing to present your views passionately no matter what they are. Dawkins et al. is not even asking that you refrain from criticizing them. They just ask you to consider them."
If that were an accurate description of so-called "vocal" atheists, this Christian would have no objection and would not describe them as "militant" (or my preferred "fundamatheist"). The problem is that such atheists insist upon arrogantly demeaning believers (usually Christians) by accusing them of being stupid or child-abusers or delusional or mentally ill or or or. The attitudinal problem is one of certainty, not passion.
http://someonesaygrace.blogspot.com/2007/06/ignominiously-defining-funda...
That is an incredibly foolish statements. They challenge people to defend their beleifs, rationally. This would be considered acceptable if it was anything other than religion. And Christians do their share of Ad Hominem. (Ann Coulter publicily cherising the vision of Richard Dawkins burning in hell.)
If all they did was "challenge people to defend their beleifs [sic]...rationally" I would have no objection. That Christians are guilty of similar behavior is obvious and beside the point, and your mention of it commits the tu quoque fallacy.
Belief, my old adversary. (I don't know why, but I can never spell that freaking word.) In this situation, the tu quoque fallacy (even though that is not actually what I did) is the point. In DB's original blog he talked about how Christians who do that sort of thing aren't labled as militant while atheists who are perceived to do that sort of thing are.
The reason I am not guilty of tu quoque is because I claimed that the so-called militant atheist did not do that sort of thing, such as openly wish opponents would be condemed to an eternity of pain. There is a difference between Dawkins' attack of the concept and Coulter's attack on Dawkins.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
"In DB's original blog he talked about how Christians who do that sort of thing aren't labled as militant while atheists who are perceived to do that sort of thing are."
In my view, fundy behavior can be characteristic of both theists and atheists.
"The reason I am not guilty of tu quoque is because I claimed that the so-called militant atheist did not do that sort of thing, such as openly wish opponents would be condemed to an eternity of pain."
Tu quoque doesn't require identical behavior.
"There is a difference between Dawkins' attack of the concept and Coulter's attack on Dawkins."
Coulter wishes Hell on atheists (I wrote on a similar subject here: http://someonesaygrace.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-laughing-matter.html); Dawkins accuses believers of child abuse. There is a distinction there, but no substantive difference.
Dawkins does not actually call all Christians child abusers in the physical sense of the word. What he believes is that early indoctrination is wrong, but he doesn't think that people who do that are wrong. While Coulter's attack was specifically aimed at Dawkins since he is probably the most vocal atheist today, it was a threat against all atheists. If you don't believe in god, you're going to hell. I realize that Tu quoque doesn't require identical behavior, but it requires behavior that falls in the same category. Coulter is pure ad hominem. Dawkins attacks the concept and laments about what the concept does to people. While he claims that an early indoctrination of any religious belief is wrong, he does not blame the parents since they would know no better.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Coulter with Christianity. She as about as much to do with actual Christianity as say... Richard Dawkins (at least Dawkins can write)
"when you hold a pen, you are at war" Attributed to Voltaire
I'm not saying that Coulter is representative of the majority of the Christian faith. However, she could be easily considered the Christian version of Dawkins. Dawkins is militant. She's opinionated. I'm just pointing out the double standard.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
there are outrageous people of all faiths. I like what Stephen Jay Gould said about Dawkins. Dawkins gives athiesm a bad name, just as the televangelists give Christianity a bad name. he thought that Dawkins should be "slapped"
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
Personally, I'd accuse Hitchens of that more than Dawkins.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
but I believe he was speaking in general originally about his lack of approval for the "militant" or -"vocal" or "proselytizing" or whatever you wish to call them- speakers on both sides. I do believe he mentioned Dawkins and another author by name. I have to see if I can track down the book for you.
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
I don't know what Gould said. In my opinion, the only truly obnoxious one of the big four "new atheists" is Hitchens.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
there are outrageous people of all faiths. I like what Stephen Jay Gould said about Dawkins. Dawkins gives athiesm a bad name, just as the televangelists give Christianity a bad name. he thought that Dawkins should be "slapped"
I do not think this is true. Gould and Dawkins did not see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, but their most contentious differences concerned technical aspects of modern evolutionary theory, not religion. Gould was an ardent proponent of punctuated equilibrium ... to the point where much of his writing came across as though he were supporting the idea that speciation occurs overnight (however, despite creationist quote-mines that is not what he was actually proposing). Dawkins, on the other hand, advocated George Gaylord Simpson's idea of differential rates of evolution and allopatric speciation (geographically isolated speciation) with recolonization to explain the fossil record that Gould used as evidence of punctuated equilibrium.
Also Gould was a strong critic of adaptationist explanations and Dawkins is an ardent adaptationist. Those were their main disagreements.
To my knowledge, Gould never referred to Dawkins' atheism directly, which is not too surprising since Dawkins atheism didn't become so pronounced until after the 9/11 tragedies. Gould was dying of cancer then and trying to finish his opus THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY before he died (8 months after that).
Gould did have a much more favorable view of religion than does Dawkins. Gould wanted science and religion to occupy separate domains. He thought in doing so, science and religion could coexist in a "loving concordat". He called this approach NOMA for Non-Overlapping MAgisteria. He presented his ideas in a book called ROCK OF AGES.
It is true that he does take vocal atheists to task in that book. Here in full context is the only section in that book where he does:
In advocating the NOMA argument over many years, I have found that skeptical friends and colleagues do not challenge the logic of the argument -- which almost everyone accepts as both intellectually sound and eminently practical in our world of diverse passions -- but rather question my claim that most religious and scientific leaders actually do advocate the precepts of NOMA. We all recognize, of course, that many folks and movements hold narrow and aggressive partisan positions, usually linked to an active political agenda, and based on exalting one side and bashing the other. Obviously extremists of the so-called Christian right, particularly the small segment dedicated to imposing creationism on the science curricula of American public schools, represent the most visible subgroup of these partisans. But I also include among my own scientific colleagues, some militant atheists whose blinkered concept of religion grasp none of the subtlety or diversity, and equates this entire magisterium with the silly and superstitious beliefs of people who think they have seen the divinely crafted image of the Virgin in the drying patterns of the morning dew on plate-glass windows of some auto showroom in New Jersey.
While this is a "slap" of sorts against vocal atheists it does not rise to level of claiming that it gives atheism a bad name or that vocal atheists should be actually slapped.
Since I am a vocal atheist, and this is my blog ... I think I'll end this comment by responding to Gould's paragraph. I think Gould is wrong here on just about everything.
(1) I DO question the logic of NOMA. While science and religion does have their own primary focus, there IS overlap.
(a) Religion and science are both concerned with the question of origins. Religion postulates a creator of the universe and mankind. Those are questions that are addressible by science as well. Religion was there first. They came up with an idea. Science's evidence did not support it. There was (and in most corners of religion ... still is) a conflict. If one was right then the other had to be wrong ... or as NOMA supporters would argue -- misunderstood.
That, of course, is blatent bullshit. The biblical version of creation isn't a MISUNDERSTOOD scientific version. It is a different version.
(b) It is not true that science cannot show the existence of God. In fact, if God were to exist, I would suspect science would have shown it by now. While it is true that science does not have access to any supernatural world, God doesn't confine his activities to only the supernatural world (or at least no God worth worshiping does). God supposedly acts in the natural world. We should be able to spot his actions. But we don't. When we look closely miracles dissolve away. Intercessory prayer has no effect. Everything that God is supposed to do fades into inaccessible invisibility as though he weren't there. To me that says he isn't there.
So I DO NOT think Gould's NOMA is "intellectually sound".
(2) Nor do I think it is "eminently practical". Although Gould claims the two can live together in a "loving concordat", what he is actually advocating is benign neglect of the two. Well EXCUSE ME ... but with 85% of the people claiming a religious belief, that is a huge population to benignly neglect. And science is too important in our technological world for it to be benignly neglected either.
(3) While creationists do constitute a big problem with their insistence on inculcating creationism (including ID which despite protests to the contrary IS creationism in a cheap tuxedo) they receive tacit support from the large body of moderate Christians who "respect" their faith.
I believe, in fact, that Gould's "loving concordat" with religion contributed to his notorious ability to phrase things that taken out of context could so easily be used by creationists as evidence that evolutionary theory actually supported a creationist point of view.
(4) Gould calls vocal atheists "militant atheists". This is not a term he uses for any Christian movement. It is a blatantly pejorative term.
(5) Gould claims that these "militant atheists" have a "blinkered concept of religion" and do not understand its "subtlety and diversity". Well I have spent a large part of my time getting to know what Christianity actually says. I will agree with the diversity ... if you ask two Christians what they believe about a certain concept, I find they will give you ten different answers ... EACH. But as for subtlety ... I'm often told it is there. But so far the subtlety has been only slightly less ridiculous than that from a person who believes that God caused the Virgin Mary to appear on cheese sandwich.
(6) These "militant atheists" that Gould refer to are not asking that religion be outlawed. They are not even asking that churches hire competent biology professors to teach modern evolutionary theory in Sunday Schools. They are challenging the rational basis for religious belief ... that is all. I think that is a GOOD thing.
Science does not whine when someone questions its basis for a belief. It presents the evidence. That is the way it should be ... with everything.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
written about. In Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism, a book edited by Anthony Petto. One of the authors in that book quotes Gould as being very disaproving of "millitant athiests." I thought that Gould mentioned Dawkins by name, perhaps I am mistaken (I no longer have a copy of this book)
I will look into it, I have no problem admitting when I am mistaken, it is very possible that I am confusing two different quote from two different people.
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
I consider it a very accurate statement. Let's see how accurate your portrayal is in your blog that you link to:
Historically, fundamentalism was an ecumenical Christian movement in North America premised upon certain fundamental truths all Christians shared (most prominently the authority of the Scriptures, the virgin birth, the physical resurrection and the atoning work of Christ, and the second coming) and reflected by a series of tracts called The Fundamentals. Over time, the idea developed in general terms to denote strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles or, in the words of the American Heritage Dictionary, "a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."
Interesting in that in this paragraph, there is no mention of atheism at all. In fact, this paragraph seems to exclude atheism since atheism is not a religion. Of course, in the next paragraph you are going to say your authority is wrong to do so.
Readily ascertainable truth?? I don't think I have EVER heard an atheist use that phrase. Certainly it has not been used by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, or Hitchens. Dawkins has been explicit that scientific knowledge is ALWAYS provisional. In science we believe things based on the evidence at hand. We also test that knowledge by making predictions and then seeing if the predictions are born out. That means that new evidence is always being gathered. So it is always possible that new evidence may contradict what is presently the state of scientific knowledge. So we must always keep a modicum of doubt.
Having said that many things in science are supported by such a body of evidence that it would be unwise to doubt them. That is how we have made as much progress in understanding the universe as we have.
I should also add that I would not characterize biblical fundamentalism as Bible + common sense = readily ascertainable truth. That is because I do not think that believing that "God impregnating a virgin so he can be his own son to come down to earth get killed by torture so he can allow us fallen humans into heaven" really includes "common sense". But then again I am one of those vocal atheist who does ridicule religious beliefs.
I will speak for myself here. I do not think that religious beliefs are necessarily evil. However, there are some that are. In my discussions I have had numerous religious fundamentalists believe that the Noachian flood is an historical event. They even see it as a sign of God's love for us that he killed every living thing except 8 people and a breeding pair of all the animal species. THAT I believe is truly evil. It is just that type of unthinking dogma that allowed historical abuses such as the Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Jim Jones, Abu Ghraib, Heaven's Gate cult, and the like. In my opinion it is an abomination.
I have yet to come across any theist whose religious beliefs I would characterize as rational. I say this because none of their core beliefs have withstood scrutiny. Either the discussions end with no defense or the theist resorts to saying that he believes as he does despite the evidence based on his personal faith. I do not believe such faith -- believing something to be true despite unrefuted contradictory evidence -- is rational.
Finally, I do not believe that "truth" as you put is obvious at all. In fact, I never talk about "the truth", I talk about the evidence. I don't think truth of hardly anything can be known with absolute certainty. But that doesn't mean that every opinion is equally valid. One opinion can be overwhelmingly supported by the evidence and another can be overwhelmingly contradicted by the evidence. Those two opinions are NOT equally valid.
For the most part, I do not see my own opinion as differring significantly from that of the other vocal atheists, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, or Hitchens. A lot has been made of Dawkins reference to labelling a child as a "Christian child" a form of child abuse. I'm ambivalent about that. I think I know what he means but I'm not sure that it rises to the level of child abuse as much as it is simply incorrect.
Dawkins is correct when he says there is no such thing as a "Christian child", a "Muslim child", a "Jewish child", a "communist child", or a "capitalist child". A child cannot have yet determined on his own that he believes those tenets. And thus, the label is wrong. Dawkins goes ahead and give the appropriate label ... "a child of Christian parents", "a child of Muslim parents" etc.
I think Dawkins sees the child abuse in the labelling of a child as such is that it fosters a tendency to behave to a child as though he held those beliefs. But I'm not sure that is true.
I have deeply held beliefs. But I think they are reasoned beliefs. I can see how someone may interpret that as arrogance. It doesn't bother me if they do. If they are going to get into the public sphere and tout their beliefs which I have good reason to doubt then I will very likely call them on it. When they spout off ridiculous crap that they are unwilling to defend, the only way I can respond is with ridicule. And I will do so. I make no apologies for that. But I have also always addressed their points that do make. I think the other prominent vocal atheists do as well.
I do not find your equating vocal atheists (even the ones who may be "mean" to you) with religious fundamentalists as valid. The difference is that we invite reasoned criticism, they stand on authority only. Their intolerance is based on the precept that if you don't agree with what they say then you are an evil person. Our intolerance is based on the continuous use of poor arguments. If a reasoned argument is made then we generally address it. We may pick it apart, but we that is what arguing is for.
I think what you are REALLY asking for is that your religious beliefs be given a free ride. If someone says that he really believes God told someone to marry a prostitute and prophesize to the nation then it is OK to think of him as a kook, ... unless that someone believes it of the prophet Isaiah in which case it is a religious belief and deserves to be respected. Well sorry, ridiculous is ridiculous. I don't feel the need to give religion that type of a free-ride.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
...Hitler's religious beliefs were never really anything more than whatever he thought would get him ahead at any given moment, Stalin and Mao were actually atheists, Jim Jones was just plain crazy, Heaven's Gate worshiped aliens who traveled in a comet, and Abu Gharib had nothing to do with religion (it was a bunch of rednecks who never should have been over there f'ing with prisoners and doing what might have been humiliating but certainly didn't rise to the level of beheadings, female genital mutilation, or any of the stuff that Hitler, Stalin, or Mao did).
Oh, and for the record I was listening to NPR on two seperate occassions when Richard Dawkins was promoting his book. His accent makes him sound more harmless some how, but in each interview he specifically said that parents who "indoctrinate" their children with religion "are guilty of child abuse."
There's nothing like a trail of blood to find your way back home.--Nikki Sixx
Hmm, it has been a long time since I wrote anything here so, I'll have to go back up and see what it is you are talking about. .... OK, here is what I said:
I used "the Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Jim Jones, Abu Ghraib, Heaven's Gate cult, and the like" as an example of unthinking dogma not religion. My problem with religion is that it promotes unthinking dogma. Unthinking dogmas can certainly arise from other things as well, but nothing promotes them so directly as does religion.
Yes, Hitler did what he did not in the name of religion, but in the name of fascism. Fascism was his unthinking dogma. Stalin and Mao did what they did in the name of Communism. Communism was their unthinking dogma. The problem with these weren't religion, but unthinking dogmas.
You say that Jim Jones was crazy. But I don't think you can claim that about all 900 of his followers. Yet they killed themselves as well. They let themselves be drawn in to a religiously based unthinking dogma. The same thing goes for the Heaven's Gate cult. It too was religion-based
My religious example was the claim by many theists that God was somehow showing his love for us when he killed everybody. These people have rationalized what would have been -- if it had actually happened -- the worst case of mass genocide in history as an act of love. These people see nothing wrong with it. In fact they see the purportrator of such an act as the foundation of all morals. If these people can be convinced of that then they can be convinced that it is a good thing to do whatever atrocity one may want to propose as being the will of God. That is why I called it an abomnation.
.
OK ... I have no problem with that.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
...is well taken. Although, as a point of information, somewhere between 30% and 50% of those who died at Jonestown where either shot for not drinking the Kool-Aid or had it injected into their system by Jones' henchmen. (That was according to a Discovery Channel special. There were actually audio recordings of the mass suicide/murder. Very disturbing.)
And for the record, it says in several places in the Bible that people like Jim Jones and that Applegate guy (or whatever his name was) from the Heaven's Gate racket will get an especially horrific torment in hell. For whatever that's worth.
There's nothing like a trail of blood to find your way back home.--Nikki Sixx
(1) I am aware that not all at Jonestown voluntarily commited suicide, but a lot did. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge they all did voluntarily follow Jim Jones to Guyana. So they did follow the unthiinking dogma to disasterous results.
(2) Maurice Applewhite was the name of the Heaven's Gate cult's leader, although he went by some pseudonym which I can't remember ... was it Omega??
(3) Actually I find the idea of hell very disturbing on a moral basis. I don't think there is anything that one person can possibly do, no matter how bad that warrents eternal punishment. Eternity is a very long time. Suppose someone intentionally did something that caused everybody on earth and their descendants for however many finite generations thereafter, to live the a life of nothing but pain and misery. At some point the suffering that this one person does will exceed all the suffering he caused, and he would still have eternity to go.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
You have a great point. I don't think 'militant' is really the proper adjective to use in this situation =P
I have a question...Since when did Muslims turn into Islamists? I've heard so many people use it recently, but I don't understand why...
I don't think telling Christians "bugger off and mind your own business" is being militant. I certainly hear worse from Christians who demand I believe (as if one could flip a switch and *poof*).
They can hardly be considered 'militant' by criticizing something. The people who termed them that may just be honestly nervous, or just trying to get back at these people by trying to spread a label and make them look aggressive and crazy.
Great post!
The term militant is a label to slap on marginalized or unpopular groups that get a little too 'rowdy' when talking about what in the status quo displeases them. When they get a bit too much attention. When what they say makes a little too much sense and they might start to have an impact.
That's where 'militant feminist' came from. Protesting peaceably is NOT blowing things up and killing people.
You hardly hear abortion picketers described as 'militant' even though they get violent sometimes.
Beautifully written and as always, very well thought out and well said. We need more thinking like this. Thank you for taking the time to put these thoughts down so eloquently.
~I should have ducked~
Oh Darwin.... You simply awe me with your eloquent, logical, and fabulous writing style. Another wonderful post. Thank you for having such educating posts. Keep up the good work. :-) (that's why I nominated you!!!)
Love you, Love your work,
Ceila --
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ceila30
The media will put any label on something just to get the people to follow their beilefs... I am a Christian and i do have Atheist friends. I understand your point and agree with you although certain points you made I can not fully agree with. But i bet you can understand why... However kudos for your post as it was informative
---Mike Schilling---
your mind revolves around the God you don't believe in. If it's not true, why do you spend so much time on it? I know the things that I don't believe in take NONE of my time...Jokes on you dude...
Religions have a huge amount of influence in the world. It can cause the denial of rights to some. It can cause wars. It can stunt human growth.
And things that you don't beieve in must take up some of your time. You have to make the choice to not believe in them at the very least, you have to make that decision.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
But when all you can talk about is how not true something is...Tell me what you believe. Inspire me to be interested in what you find as truth. Telling me what is NOT true does not lead me to your truth. Is that more clear? I am not being militant...I just want to understand what inspires the people that are so against Christianity. What do they beleive in? What drives them? Why did they come to the conclusion? And proving the Bible wrong is not the way to convince me.
I came to the conclusions because I believe that a) god is illogical ad b) god is unnecessary. How do you know this is al we can talk about? Speaking for myself, I post about religion because it interests me and I enjoy the discussions that it generates.
What do I believe in? I believe in anything that seems reasonable to believe based on the evidence. I believe that there is no purpose to life in general, no grand scheme. I believe that living a life is enough purpose for me.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
I do not know a lot of people who can honestly say that "living a life is enough purpose for me". That is an amazing comfort and seems to me some times as far fetched an idea as the bible is to you.
I guess it can be commended even if not understood.
~Peace
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
The way I see it, we are here on Earth for a span of, maybe, eighty years or so. You may not be some huge pawn in a master plan for the Universe, but your life makes a difference to everyone that you interact with. There are people who care about you and who you care about. There are things that you can do with your life. These are the things that give life meaning to me.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
is PURPOSE...
And that is my point. I don't need there to be a god to have that purpose.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Across the spectrum of life there are happy people and despondent ones...Forgive me if I spelled it wrong...If you have found yourself, consider yourself part of a very small group of people...Even I still search for what makes me happy-and the only thing that never fails me is my gorgeous daughter...So...Call it what you will. Life is too short to let people define themselves onto you...
I don't disagree with you. I'm just not exactly sure what you are trying to say in regards to my beliefs
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
I am very honestly NEVER against anyone's beliefs. I do hate when people are STUCK, meaning they bash others because of different viewpoints. Diversity is what makes this country, and life great. We all make choices every day, and I am not for making others for them-so I, personally have decided to make sure that I am willing to listen and LEARN from others, no matter what they believe. I think it wonderful that you stay in the conversations to better understand and be understood.
Very good reply. I am amazed because no one has asked that of anybody till now. I really do wish I could see more convincing religous stuff than all this 'I do not beleive that' arguements.
Very insightful.
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
This may surprise you but I don't believe in the Easter bunny, Thor, or Rex the Wonder Gremlin either. And none of those occupies a significant portion of my mind either. So then why does your silly God?
In case you are having a hard time answering that question, let me answer it for you. It is because I live in a society that is dominated by Christians. And a lot of those Christians want to deny me basic human rights.
Here is a story about Jerry Falwell's son, Jonathan, planning to resume his fathers activities to get religion into government. Here is a story about Kathy Griffin's remarks about Jesus having nothing to do with winning her emmy being censored from a future telecast because some Christians find it offensive. Here is a story that despite what it specifically says in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, most Americans think this country was intended to be a Christian nation.
I'll bet if you lived in Saudi Arabia and had to keep yourself covered, couldn't drive, and faced severe punishment if you witnessed for your Christian faith then what you don't believe in (Allah) WOULD take up quite a bit of your time.
If that were your home and you thought you had a reasonable chance you might even want to change the society. Well, this is my home, and I think that for the first time in history there is a reasonable chance to change the society. I want to change it. I want to decrease the influence of religion in society. I don't think it deserves the respect it arrogantly demands. I think it fosters unthinking dogma which has in the past, still does in the present, and can in the future become a recipe for disaster.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
...why, of all the things we can't see, hear, smell, taste, or touch, God is the one that sticks in your craw so much. I personally have a real problem with the concept of dark matter in space. I have seen and heard scientist after scientist go on and on about the wonderous nature of "dark matter', and then say that (we) know it's there because it has to be. I even heard one scientist on NPR say, "It has to be there. Without it, so much of what we think we know doesn't make sense." Well, just because you need it to be there for your belief system to make sense doesn't mean it's really there. Isn't that the gist of the Atheist argument?
I thought your original post was well written and managed to make your points without being denegrating or condescending. I am a Christian, and while I think you're dead wrong I would die to defend your right to believe the way you believe. I think that our founding fathers expected this to turn out to be Christian nation, but they had the foresight to build in protections of those who weren't Christians. I believe that was a stroke of genius because human history has taught us nothing if not the propensity of mankind to hurt each other over the smallest of differences.
However, your last post seemed to slide into the same, "how dumb can you Christians be" tone that so permeates the God/No God debate. I would like to conclude with the following:
I hope, beyond any reason, that some day science discovers some microscopic flying life form that resembles a jumble of spaghetti with teeth. Then wouldn't Richard Dawkins be surprised?
There's nothing like a trail of blood to find your way back home.--Nikki Sixx
God sticks in my craw none at all. He doesn't exist. The professed belief in God affects my life daily. I live in Christian dominated society. And a majority of the people seem to think it would be a good idea to have our government based on Christian principles. While they might not agree as to exactly what those principles are, none of the people promoting that idea have principles that I think would lead to a good society.
That is the main reason I don't like Christianity. You may claim that is unfair, that I am ignoring the good that Christianity does. If so I am willing to listen, but until you can show me a theocracy that doesn't operate oppressively then you will be hard pressed to convince me that Christianity with its very real threat of turning this country into a theocracy is a benefit for me.
A less important reason that I don't like Christianity is that so many of its beliefs ARE ridiculous. But yet we are supposed to for some reason give these ridiculous beliefs more respect than anyone would ever ask for equally ridiculous non-religious beliefs. I think this idea that we should not criticize religion is one of the reasons that makes the threat of a Christian theocracy so real.
(1) Dark matter doesn't affect my life on a daily basis, so I am less concerned about it.
(2) The reason we believe that dark matter exists is because there isn't enough visible matter to create the gravity to hold galaxies together the way they are being held together. So we are left with only two ways out ... there is matter that we don't see, or there are things other than the gravity caused by matter that holds galaxies together. We have candidate particles for dark matter; there are no candidates for things other than the gravity caused by matter that holds galaxies together.
(3) The crux of MY atheistic arguments is NOT that God is required to make sense of things, it is that even invoking God, you still do not make sense of things.
Thanks, and I just want to say that I think you are dead wrong about our founding fathers. While I will grant you that most were Christians, they had the foresight, and the relatively recent historical prospective of the European witch trials (which didn't end until the 18th century and even happened in Salem, Massachusetts) et al. to know that governments run on secular principles do better. There is nothing in the Constitution that is specifically biblical, and the 1st Amendment keeping government out of religion and Article VI sec. 3 prohibiting a requirement for any religious oaths of office argue that they specifically wanted religion out of government.
OK.
(1) I would rephrase it as, "How ridiculous can you Christians be?" I know some pretty smart people (some of them non-Christians) that believe some ridiculous things. But I believe you can't be a Christian without believing ridiculous things. Now having said that, I don't think that anyone should be denied the right to believe ridiculous things, just the right to demand unearned respect for them.
(2) I also think that it is a good thing to say it ... if nothing else to put a dent in this veneer that we need to give religious beliefs a respect that we never afford any other type of belief.
(3) I doubt that Dawkins would be any more surprised than anybody else. He might be a little more amused at finding the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that is all.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I think we say "fanaticism" and "extremist" and that kind of terminology with religion. But I see your point. We're living in a society where everything should be in it's "correct," tactful, politically correct terms. If someone is shouting their beliefs, it is "militant." I don't believe it is an attack on atheism, but simply because how can someone be described as a "fanatic atheist?" Fanaticism implies a blind, religious obsession, while "militant" connects with strategic, eyes wide open, shouted belief.
I'd rather be "militant" than "fanatic" any day.
I am jealous due to the fact that my total number of points does not even equal the number of points you got from people reading this thing.
I am also jealous of your work ethic and your eloquence in talking about atheism.
But I must congratulate you on an excellent, thoughtful and thought-provoking blog. I didn't realize there was such large-scale psychological warfare going on about me.
--Samus
(if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention)
DB you and Jsaj say in just about every blog that y'all don't like people shoving ideas down other people's throats. (Which I agree with). Yet, you critize religious beliefs and comment on such blogs as if trying to crush the person's beliefs.
I don't think you can find any place that I complain about people "shoving ideas down other people's throats". Furthermore, on a forum like this I don't think it is even possible. No one can FORCE me to read anything I don't want to. For the record, I think that people going uninvited to other people's homes to spread their religion is obnoxious and is a form of abuse.
But on a forum like this, I do not mind people arguing passionately about what they believe. That is what this forum is all about, and I think it is a good thing. What I object to is assertion not based on evidence or rational thinking. That is a poor argument.
I try to make the "force" behind my arguments the reasoning. If you read my posts I try to present the reasoning behind what I believe to be true. You will be hard pressed to find me saying that "I know .... to be true". I try to open the possibility for things to be other than what I believe them to be. In science we know that all knowledge is provisional, if data arises that cannot be accommodated in our theories then our theories must be changed. But having said that, I want to make it perfectly clear that there is enough data out there to make theories, live by them, have reasonable expectations based on them, and have reasoned confidence that they are if not exactly right, at least very close to being so.
It is also true that I do not have a great deal of respect for religious beliefs. When a religious person responds to one of my posts I will generally give them a little bit of leeway to begin with. I keep hoping that they will actually challenge my argument. But I seldom see that. Instead what I usually see is an attempt to convert my argument into one that they can respond to. They ignore the points that I DO make in favor of responding to points that I have carefully avoided making. They will often dismiss my points with simplistic platitudes. These people aren't taking my argument seriously. And if that is going to be the case then why are they here? I find that type of pleasant-sounding insincerity the height of rudeness and I generally do not tolerate that type of foolishness well.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I don't like it when people try to do that. I have never accused, as far as I can remember, anyone on this site as doing that. I have said that some blogs seem preachy or for the purpose of coversion, but I agree with DB, you can't force ideas down someone's throat on a website. People can just stop reading.
So, I criticize religious beliefs. I criticize any belief I consider irrational. I don't hold any special reverance for the religious belief. However, the belief crushes itself. Any idea is open to examination and criticisim. When an idea is crushed by that, it is crushed by its own lack of substance.
That being said, go and be religious. I don't care as long as it doesn't affect me, which it doesn't, if you actually do agree that forcing ideas on people is bad.
P.S.
Hurray, I was just put in a group with DB. :-)
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
D.B. keeping government out of the religion business and religion out of the government business is one thing we can definitely agree on. I can't imagine any one wanting their church to be subject to government involvement, for a plethora of reasons. At the same time, I can't imagine anyone who is devout in their faith wanting to live under a theocracy. At that point all it takes is some Jim Jones type to somehow ascend to the "presidency" (high priesthood?) and suddenly those who thought they were "shittin' in tall cotton" as part of the religion in control find themselves declared heritics and therefore enemies of the state AND God.
No thank you.
There's nothing like a trail of blood to find your way back home.--Nikki Sixx
The term militant atheist describes atheists who attempt to convert people and belittle people with religious beliefs. If the people who do this are religious, we call them fundamentalists. The notion of fundamental atheism is nonsensical and a contradiction. So we call them militant. It's to point out the irony in atheists who act like religious people in all the bad ways, like organizing into groups, pushing a political agenda, and insulting those with different beliefs. Fundamentalists incorrectly believe that America was founded as a Christian nation, like militant atheists incorrectly believe that the first amendment is meant to protect them from people expressing their religious beliefs in the public square.
These so-called militant ateists are, for the most part, atheists who haven't been cowed into hiding and therefore openly declare their atheism and try and make their beliefs known and understood.
The religious opposite of that is not Fundamentalism. The use of the word militant is demonizing and misleading. Militant Islam or Militant Christianity both refer to the small groups that use violence to acheive their goals. Militant Atheism refers to people who talk openly about their beliefs.
And no intellegent atheist, "militant" or otherwise, thinks that the first amendment stops people from openly preaching in public. We think that it protects people from trying to use religion to influence government.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
>"Atheists are not responsible for...treating [theism] with a respect or deference that it hasn't earned."
>We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16...In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group
Just a few quotes that i could get in two minutes of research. You cannot ignore events and people like the French Revolution, Stalin, the Spanish Civil War, Che Guevara, Castro, and many more, and say that only religious people kill the unbelievers, as atheists have done the same.
Neither of those quotes are militant. None of them suggest the slightest intention of killing, harming or forcing disbelief on people of faith.
Also, atheism isn't communism. People weren't killed because they weren't atheist, rather because they weren't communist. Religions have been responsible for the killing of people because of their lack or difference in faith.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Jsaj, let's be honest. Over the millenia those who have been prepared to kill to achieve their goals have done so, and then sought justification after the fact. It doesn't matter if it was First Millenia popes, Saracen warriors, Josef Stalin, or the Imam d'jour. They all decide that they're going to kill those who oppose them or stand in their way, and then come up with the rationale afterwards.
The fact of the matter is that if you want to come at any group in existence today from the right angle, you can make them seem like the most blood thirsty, irresponsible human beings to ever walk the planet. Except maybe for Buddhist monks.
There's nothing like a trail of blood to find your way back home.--Nikki Sixx
Indeed. Which just makes the phrase militant atheism even more incongruous.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"These books ARE highly critical of religion, especially Islam and Christianity, but since when does criticism constitute militancy? "
To the original poster. I find this line interesting. I too, am an atheist. However, I frown upon criticizing religions of any kind for three reasons.
1. What's the point? They are still going to exist.
2. And since when is it cool to criticize fundamental beliefs of people that are provided rights to whatever religion they want under the constitution? We are always complaining about constitutional rights, yet we criticize people for embracing theirs?
3. It's disrespectful. Whether you believe in religion or not, you should always respect other people's religious beliefs. Except in extreme cases like abortion clinic bombers or Muslim Extremists. If they are just living their lives, not bothering anybody (which the overwhelming majority is like this), they should be left alone.
The point is not whether or not it is right to criticize religion (in the way these authors do it or in any other way), but whether this warrants the name "militant". When people refer to militant atheists, they are referring to people who speak out against religions. Put militant in front of any other group of people and you get violent extremists.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Before getting into your 3 reasons, I want to ask ... Are you REALLY an atheist? While I am sure that there are SOME atheists who believe the way you do, I am skeptical of such claims when there is no objective evidence that you actually are.
I have found that for some strange reason there is a group of theists that seem to think that claiming to be an atheist somehow gives more credence to their pro-theistic arguments. And their pro-theistic arguments are usually just like the one you present ... We really shouldn't criticize religion in any way.
But as for the soundness of your argument, it doesn't mattter whether you are an atheist, a pointy-earred space alien, or a right-wing religious fundamentalist. All that matters is your reasoning. So, let's look at that.
. The reason to criticize it is the same reason we criticize bigotry, crime, and social injustice. Those things are still going to exist too. The reason we criticize religion is because we don't think that it is a good thing (more on that in a little bit). So the point would be to raise consciousness that there are problems with the underpinnings of religion that can be used for bad things
People have a fundamental right to believe whatever they want to believe. Nobody is criticizing that right. Nor are we "criticiz[ing] people FOR EMBRACING " those rights [emphasis added]. What is being criticized is their belief.
No vocal atheist I know of advocates any law outlawing religion. What vocal atheists say is that the basis for the belief is ridiculous and the belief leads to actions that are counterproductive and potentially devastating.
Why should I "always respect other people's religious beliefs"? Suppose someone says that he truly and sincerely believes that a 35,000 year old dead Atlantean appeared to a Tacoma, Washington housewife and told her the secrets of life. Should I "respect" that? Should I tell the person that he has a justifiable belief?
I don't think I should. Even if the person who believes such a thing may well be a nice, law-abiding person, the belief is ridiculous. Furthermore, if the belief becomes prevalent in society it is bound to have a deleterious effect. It does that by eskewing reason, and this is a bad thing for society.
Reason may not always lead us to the best solution all the time, but in general it does a much better job of doing so than ANY OTHER COMPETING entity. Religion emphasizes faith at the expense of reason.
Right now as I type this ABC's GOOD MORNING AMERICA is having a segment in which James Van Praagh is telling us that we can get valuable information from talking to the dead (actually what he is doing is hawking his book). The interview is totally credulous of his claims. Were it not for the RESPECT that we accord religious beliefs in supernatural entities then this pile of shit would not be foisted upon us.
Ben Stein stars in a "documentary" movie that accuses the scientific community of a conspiracy to persecute religion. In a recent interview on Paul Crouch Jr.'s Trinity Broadcasting Network talk show he said:
"Science leads you to KILLING PEOPLE." Science, which has given us the tools to do more tangible good for society than ANY other human endeavor, leads you to killing people. What was Paul Crouch's response to that statement?
The only way this nonsense would be tolerated is because RELIGION IN GENERAL IS GIVEN UNJUSTIFIABLE RESPECT.
Even more recently, Cardinal Murphy O'Connor said:
Hitler and Stalin ruled by "reason"?? What exactly is so "reasonable" about terror and oppression? Hitler and Stalin ruled by adhering to an unthinking dogma, and religion more than ANYTHING ELSE promotes the development of unthinking dogmas.
While I have no problems believing that most religous people do no harm, and it is not hard to find instances in which religion even helps some people, we need to ask what is the overall effect. I do not agree with your implied assertion that religion is a harmless activity. I think the overall effect of religion is negative. That is why I criticize it. That is why I will continue to do so. I want to lessen its influence in society as much as possible. I am not advocating that we legislate laws against it. I am criticizing it based on reason. Contrary to Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, I think no society ever suffered by becoming TOO reasonable.
Cheers,
DB
Even more recently
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
...to some extent. ;-)
Every religion, with the exception of those held within a single individual, attempts to justify its' superiority over all others. Prosthletizing Atheists are just attempting to spread their faith as so many other faiths are prone to.
If they just talk about their own beliefs they are neither better nor worse than the others. It is when any evangelical atheist starts talking about any faith they do not hold themselves that they become bigots. None of us is qualified to judge another persons religion for the simple reason that we do not know what it is.
If you have no faith in Allah how could you know what a Muslim actually believes? If you have not been born again in Christ you do not have a CLUE what it means.
Teaching from your ignorance is rather pathetic.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
-Albert Einstein
(LINK)
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
Here's another
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France