Angry atheists rant thread.

As vice president and holder of the biscuit cupboard key, I can tell you that "Marx" is not and never has been a member of the Apple Pie gang. Nor is he in the Dream Team, NWO, The Grahame-proclaimed Satanists, or any other real or fictional group that I may or may not be part of (or be accused of being part of).

Fictional? I thought they were all real! now i can chill out,knowing i have no reason to feel threatened.

The Karl? Marx resurrection gave me a bit of a stir though.

Fictional? I thought they were all real! now i can chill out,knowing i have no reason to feel threatened.

The Karl? Marx resurrection gave me a bit of a stir though.

I didn't say they are fictional.

Although he does not state "duty" he implies it in his writing as do other prominent atheists. Perhaps me saying duty was wrong but I do feel that's what he means[/Quote]

 

What is a 'prominent' atheist?

 

I think what you and others are confusing is atheist and anti theist, although I'm not sure Dawkins (and I'm not a fan of his) could be truly said to be the latter, I don't think he is anti the idea of God as a philosophical position (although he clearly doesn't believe that position, that is not necessarily the same as being 'anti' it, for example, there are many religious positions I don't agree with philosophically but I'm not anti them, in fact being anti them would suggest I think they have substance - if I don't believe something exists there is no need to be anti that thing), although I would suggest he may be anti the institution of religion.

 

I can equate the term militant atheist with anti theist (although I rarely use the first term myself), but I wouldn't consider it the 'correct' term for what is meant.

 

Some quotes by him and other prominent atheists.

 

He has said that the publication of The God Delusion is "probably the culmination" of his campaign against religion.

 

Revealed faith is dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful![/Quote]

 

Which clearly states he dislikes religion, but not that he has a duty against Theism in particular.

 

Dawkins founded the Out Campaign in 2007 to encourage atheists worldwide to declare their stance publicly and proudly

 

Dawkins hopes that the more atheists identify themselves, the more the public will become aware of just how many people actually hold these views, thereby reducing the negative opinion of atheism among the religious majority

 

Richard Dawkins urges all atheists to openly state their position -- and to fight the incursion of the church into politics and science.

 

The clip in this link is a talk by Dawkins done in the USA 2002 and before his book The God Delusion.

 

 

I'm an atheist and I openly state my position, I like religion.

 

Now it seems either you have misunderstood Mr Dawkins position as being anti Theist when it is fact anti religious, or Richard Dawkins has confused Theism as a concept with religion, my gut feeling is that he is not 'anti Theist' but has confused the two positions linguistically.

 

Which brings me back to the point 'how' can someone have an atheist 'duty' to denounce religion?

 

I will condense the above, once more to my own position to make it simpler. I am an atheist, I am also religious - how do I manifest my duty to denounce something in which I believe?

I thought Richard Dawkins was an agnostic now.

nobody announces god more than an atheist does

 

anybody know who said that?

More importantly, does anyone care?

Cliff Richards a god merchant. Enough said.

You could call somebody a "militant non-stamp-collector" if you want, and it's meaningless.

 

Somebody might be militant about "something" and happen to non collect stamps, but it's the "something" that adds value to any description not the irrelevant lack of interest in a hobby.

 

Furthermore, when I try to think of real life examples of the religious intolerance you attribute to human behaviour, which is unfortunately all too real and widespread, all I get is somebody of a different religious persuasion.

 

If you do want to persist with the concept that "militant atheist" has meaning, rather than just the general ad-Hominen against atheism in general which is what I think it is, then you're going to have to spoon feed me some specific names and examples of what you mean.

On the contrary, no I don't, as, by definition, a 'miltant' is 'Having a combative character; aggressive, insulting etc', and, if a particular atheist happens to be 'Having a combative character; aggressive, insulting etc', then, said atheist is a militant one.

We don't need to know his/her name etc, an atheist behaving militantly, is, by definition, a 'militant atheist'.

(Similarly, a stamp collector behaving militantly, would be a 'militant stamp collector').

On the contrary, no I don't, as, by definition, a 'miltant' is 'Having a combative character; aggressive, insulting etc', and, if a particular atheist happens to be 'Having a combative character; aggressive, insulting etc', then, said atheist is a militant one.

 

We don't need to know his/her name etc, an atheist behaving militantly, is, by definition, a 'militant atheist'.

 

(Similarly, a stamp collector behaving militantly, would be a 'militant stamp collector').

The problem with your line of 'reasoning' is that a militant stamp collector could only be described as such if he was being aggressive while in the process of stamp collecting or performing a task that is related to/influenced by his stamp collecting. In other words there has to be some tenet or tangibility to what you're hanging the label 'militant' onto.

To further use the analogy of a coat hanger. The hanger is the dogma (religion, political ideology, etc) and militant is the garment hanging from it. Atheism is the rejection of one particular hanger (the religious one) but is not a hanger in itself meaning that there is nothing to hang the militant label on to.

Now atheists may also be humanists or secularists or hold other positions (hangers) that you can attach militant to but to call somebody a militant atheist is like calling somebody a militant non stamp collector.

It simply doesn't make any sense.

The problem with your line of 'reasoning' is that a militant stamp collector could only be described as such if he was being aggressive while in the process of stamp collecting or performing a task that is related to/influenced by his stamp collecting. In other words there has to be some tenet or tangibility to what you're hanging the label 'militant' onto.

To further use the analogy of a coat hanger. The hanger is the dogma (religion, political ideology, etc) and militant is the garment hanging from it. Atheism is the rejection of one particular hanger (the religious one) but is not a hanger in itself meaning that there is nothing to hang the militant label on to.

Now atheists may also be humanists or secularists or hold other positions (hangers) that you can attach militant to but to call somebody a militant atheist is like calling somebody a militant non stamp collector.

It simply doesn't make any sense.

So- an atheist in a productive, calm and polite discussion regarding issues based heavily around atheism and religious belief, would be an atheist.

An atheist who, in a discussion regarding issues based heavily around atheism and religious belief, cast aside rationality/reason, and, instead, engaged in goading, taunting and insulting behaviour, would be a militant atheist.

On the contrary, no I don't, as, by definition, a 'miltant' is 'Having a combative character; aggressive, insulting etc', and, if a particular atheist happens to be 'Having a combative character; aggressive, insulting etc', then, said atheist is a militant one.

 

We don't need to know his/her name etc, an atheist behaving militantly, is, by definition, a 'militant atheist'.

 

(Similarly, a stamp collector behaving militantly, would be a 'militant stamp collector').

What about an atheist person who also collects stamps?

If they are behaving miltantly at a philatelists convention are they a militant stamp-collector, or a militant atheist?

What are they if the topic they are being militant about is the care and feeding of gerbils?