Angry atheists rant thread.

[janie48]

Which posts have made you thankful for militant Christians?

The ones from the patronising conceited big heads,they know who they are, but i'm not going to stoop to their level.

[six45ive]

OK. But you maintain that it's impossible for anyone to be militant about atheism?

 

Yup, because there are no tenets or doctrine attached. How many more times do you think I'm going to have to repeat myself or would you like me to use the analogy of unicycles if that makes it easier?

For example, unlike you, I am a non unicycler. I've never rode a unicycle, I have no opinions on unicycles, unicycles aren't an issue for me. Therefore why aren't you accusing me of being a militant non unicycler as opposed to a militant atheist (non believer in god)?

Edited September 30, 2012 by six45ive

[janie48]

Which posts have made you thankful for militant Christians?

 

The first poster i addressed on a thread topic about religion was to a Christian whose comments i disagreed with,i told him he was not speaking on my behalf, if you remember.

 

It was never about preaching, it was about defending Christianity that was my intension.Not denying the shameful events in the history of our ancestors,or present failings within organised religions.I was expressing my belief that the roots of the Christian faith has been responsible for giving us much that is good in society and has helped shape the lives of principled atheists as well as christians.

 

It seems to me that many atheists feel the need to only point out the bad parts , choose to dismiss and never acknowledge anything good, and with some of them they're is an apparent( or undercurrent) hostility towards anyone who has a religious faith and to pre judge them before they know anything about them.

 

They are the blinkered closed minded bigots that i have had little connection with,because the ones in my circle have been the moderate kind whose frienships i value.

In fact they have much in common with the religious bigots they are so ready to accuse of the same offenses they themselves are guilty of.

[onewheeldave]

Yup, because there are no tenets or doctrine attached. How many more times do you think I'm going to have to repeat myself or would you like me to use the analogy of unicycles if that makes it easier.

For example, unlike you, I am a non unicycler. I've never rode a unicycle, I have no opinions on unicycles, unicycles aren't an issue for me. Therefore why aren't you accusing me of being a militant non unicycler as opposed to a militant atheist (non believer in god)?

 

I'll point out that I've not accused you of being a militant atheist

 

Given your position then, that an atheist can't possibly be militant, as atheism is devoid of doctrines/tenets: rather, it can only be the person, or, their actions that can ever be militant:

 

then how do you account for the situation in which religous believer 'a', is a militant believer (i.e. they expound their religious doctrine in a militant fashion), while believer 'b', is not a militant believer (because they expound their doctrine in a non-militant fashion)?

 

Assuming they both share the same actual religious beliefs/doctrines, then, that militancy, just as for atheism, can't be an aspect of the religious belief/doctrine (because, then both believers would be militant) so must be merely a characteristic of 'a' (or of 'a's personality/actions).

 

Which makes sense, however, it would seem to be a problem for any athiests who use the phrase 'religious militant'.

[harvey19]

I'll point out that I've not accused you of being a militant atheist

 

Given your position then, that an atheist can't possibly be militant, as atheism is devoid of doctrines/tenets: rather, it can only be the person, or, their actions that can ever be militant:

 

then how do you account for the situation in which religous believer 'a', is a militant believer (i.e. they expound their religious doctrine in a militant fashion), while believer 'b', is not a militant believer (because they expound their doctrine in a non-militant fashion)?

 

Assuming they both share the same actual religious beliefs/doctrines, then, that militancy, just as for atheism, can't be an aspect of the religious belief/doctrine (because, then both believers would be militant) so must be merely a characteristic of 'a' (or of 'a's personality/actions).

 

Which makes sense, however, it would seem to be a problem for any athiests who use the phrase 'religious militant'.

 

I understand what you mean.

[six45ive]

How do you account for the situation in which religous believer 'a', is a militant believer (i.e.they expound their religious doctrine in a militant fashion), while believer 'b', is not a militant believer (because they expound their doctrine in a non-militant fashion)?

 

Because being militant is about an individual's actions and whether their beliefs give them some justification in carrying out that militant action.

(And of course we still have a disagreement on what the term militant means which, for me is this; "favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause.")

 

Assuming they both share the same actual religious beliefs/doctrines, then, that militancy, just as for atheism, can't be an aspect of the religious belief/doctrine (because, then both believers would be militant) so must be merely a characteristic of actions based on their beliefs.

 

You're nearly there with my highlighted bit which, once again, I've changed to show my position more clearly. To be militant you have to have a cause combined with action. Without a cause there can be no such thing as militant action. It's why we don't call kids at school who are offensive, obnoxious and bullying, militant. So to simply follow a doctrine but not act on it in any way as to affect somebody else cannot be classed as militant.

 

Your point also highlights why atheists like Dawkins prefer the honesty of the (militant) fundamentalists who follow their scripture to the letter rather than the wishy washy religionists who cherry pick from scripture proving that morals don't come from an ancient book of multiple choice but from our grasp of reality and the knowledge and understanding that comes from living in a secular world.

Edited September 30, 2012 by six45ive

[RootsBooster]

For me, a theist calling me a "militant atheist" isn't a problem, it's just name-calling. What matters is the reason why they say it.

 

I don't call their gods "magical sky pixies" and I don't claim that there is no God(s).

 

An example is this:

On several occasions I have had the same experience with different creationists. Initially they claim they are open to talk about their faith and they don't mind questions. I ask them why they believe a god created the Earth and all it's beautiful contents. They say "because you only have to look at a flower/butterfly/baby/etc and see how beautiful it is, God MUST have created it"

 

The next bit is when their attitude usually changes. I point out that they are using circular reasoning/logic:

Beautiful stuff exists and they believe God created it. Why? Because it is beautiful so God must have created it.

I usually put it more diplomatically though, I explain to them that they have a belief and in trying to give a reason why they believe it they are just giving the belief as a cause for belief.

In other words, they have a belief, which is also their reason for believing.

 

At this point, no matter how polite I've been, no matter how rational/nice/unhostile I've been, they usually become a little hostile. This is the point I have been referred to before as a "militant atheist". I take this as an insult because they either think I am trying to lure them into a mind-trap of some sort or just that they are frustrated because they cannot explain their belief any better.

 

If any of you think that I should be called a militant atheist for this, please do explain.

[RootsBooster]

My Bold=

I'm not and that's the truth, I have nothing against anyone who is an atheist or has no belief and use the term to describe the ones that resort to being abusive ie refering to God as a sky pixie or just generally being abusive about religion/belief.

My definition of Militant Atheist is someone who resorts to or is being abusive/offensive about religion/God/believers etc and is not a form of revenge or used to wind up so sorry if it comes across as that.

By that example then, theists who tell me my heart or mind is not open to God, or that I am ignorant of God, or that I have forgotten God, are all militant theists.

 

I take offence to people making judgements about me that are untrue, especially when they know nothing about me and base their judgements on assumptions. It shows their militancy and ignorance.

[onewheeldave]

For me, a theist calling me a "militant atheist" isn't a problem, it's just name-calling. What matters is the reason why they say it.

 

I don't call their gods "magical sky pixies" and I don't claim that there is no God(s).

 

 

I commend you on that- it's the kind of goading that, IMO, does wind up some believers, who then react by thinking of the atheist as 'militant' or insulitng.

 

 

 

An example is this:

On several occasions I have had the same experience with different creationists. Initially they claim they are open to talk about their faith and they don't mind questions. I ask them why they believe a god created the Earth and all it's beautiful contents. They say "because you only have to look at a flower/butterfly/baby/etc and see how beautiful it is, God MUST have created it"

 

The next bit is when their attitude usually changes. I point out that they are using circular reasoning/logic:

Beautiful stuff exists and they believe God created it. Why? Because it is beautiful so God must have created it.

I usually put it more diplomatically though, I explain to them that they have a belief and in trying to give a reason why they believe it they are just giving the belief as a cause for belief.

In other words, they have a belief, which is also their reason for believing.

 

At this point, no matter how polite I've been, no matter how rational/nice/unhostile I've been, they usually become a little hostile. This is the point I have been referred to before as a "militant atheist". I take this as an insult because they either think I am trying to lure them into a mind-trap of some sort or just that they are frustrated because they cannot explain their belief any better.

 

If any of you think that I should be called a militant atheist for this, please do explain.

I don't think you should be called a militant atheist for that, as long as, as you say, you've been polite and non-insulting.

 

Bear in mind though, that a lot of those atheists in the pro-active sceptical movement, aren't so polite, and, when talking with believers, do engage in counter productive behaviour, ranging from the general condescention (talking down to people as if they are of low intelligence, as we've seen on this very thread), to use of terms they know full well are provocative ('sky-pixies', Xtians etc), to outright insults (e.g. all believers are, by definition, irrataional).

 

Fortunately, there is a growing awareness in the sceptical movement, that those ways of speaking/behaving are somewhat pointless and counter-productive, as, when it comes to communicating with believers and trying to get across what atheism/scepticism is really about, you really need to be involved in a genuine communication, which, is impossible, if the other person has walked away feeling insulted and infuriated.

[quisquose]

I'll point out that I've not accused you of being a militant atheist

 

So far, other than a rather general "people like Dawkins", you have been unwilling to give specific examples of somebody who you do accuse of being a militant atheist, and why.