Angry atheists rant thread.

[onewheeldave]

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.")

 

 

 

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.

 

 

OK. I think I can agree that you've got a logically consistent POV there.

 

Strictly speaking, no atheist can be militant, because, you consider 'militant' to mean aggressive behaviour or speech in support of a doctrine.

 

And, atheism as you see it* is empty of doctrine, therefore an essential component of militancy is missing.

 

Would you agree, however, that the above only holds as long as a particular 'atheist' is truly atheist in the above sense of being without doctrine?

 

If for example, a person who thought of themselves as 'atheist', yet attached some form of doctrine to it, for example-

 

 

Its the duty of every atheist to point out the failings of religion and what religion has done for society. Same way its the duty of most religions people to believe unconditionally in their faith without question and to spread the word. Things that are difficult to do unless its debated.

 

you would have to hold that they were either, not a true atheist, or, were confused as to what atheism means?

 

 

 

(* the asterix is there simply because, as you and I both know, there are, in common usage, 2 definitions of 'atheism'. We've spoke about this before and, you consider the 2nd to be totally invalid (i.e. atheist as someone who believes there isn't a God), whereas I, due to my respect for 'common usage' don't consider it invalid. I only mention it to be precise- in general I'm happy to work with the strictly logical/emtymological meaning that you use).

[onewheeldave]

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.

 

True. I did mention though, that I wasn't doing so, as I considered it pointless

[quisquose]

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).

 

Neither do I, but I don't object to people who do either.

 

What I do object to is people who use "offence" as an excuse to shut down criticism. Now that is offensive.

 

Offence is an inevitable consequence of free speech, particularly if offence is defined merely as criticism of an idea as Mafya seemed to suggest earlier. Efforts to restrict "offence" can become a tool to silence critics or oppress minorities.

 

At the moment is that there are competing forces claiming that their "offence" holds more currency than everybody else's. This is an arrogant view that I find offensive, just as I do the wannabe hood that claims his "respect".

 

I find some views offensive, and somebody who holds those views might find my criticism of those views offensive. We cannot value one form of offence ahead of another, we need more free speech not less.

[quisquose]

True. I did mention though, that I wasn't doing so, as I considered it pointless

 

And I think it essential, as I think you are just trolling otherwise.

 

:no smiley face:

[onewheeldave]

Neither do I, but I don't object to people who do either.

 

What I do object to is people who use "offence" as an excuse to shut down criticism. Now that is offensive.

 

Offence is an inevitable consequence of free speech, particularly if offence is defined merely as criticism of an idea as Mafya seemed to suggest earlier. Efforts to restrict "offence" can become a tool to silence critics or oppress minorities.

 

At the moment is that there are competing forces claiming that their "offence" holds more currency than everybody else's. This is an arrogant view that I find offensive, just as I do the wannabe hood that claims his "respect".

 

I find some views offensive, and somebody who holds those views might find my criticism of those views offensive. We cannot value one form of offence ahead of another, we need more free speech not less.

 

I wouldn't want to make 'offence' illegal, for the reasons you give- it's goes against freedom of speech and, it can be heavily misused.

 

However, that doesn't stop it being highly counter-productive in debate, on atheism or any other subject, to insult the person you're trying to communicate with, when there are plenty of non-offence causing/neutral terms to use instead. And, unfortunatly, IMO, use of derogatory and deliberately provocative language, seems to be prevalent amongst some sceptics when they talk (down) to believers.

[johncocker]

Can you provide a source for this quote (nobody announces god more than an atheist does)?

Google comes up with nothing.

 

 

 

however did we manage before the great god google came into existence?

[quisquose]

I wouldn't want to make 'offence' illegal, for the reasons you give- it's goes against freedom of speech and, it can be heavily misused.

 

However, that doesn't stop it being highly counter-productive in debate, on atheism or any other subject, to insult the person you're trying to communicate with, when there are plenty of non-offence causing/neutral terms to use instead. And, unfortunatly, IMO, use of derogatory and deliberately provocative language, seems to be prevalent amongst some sceptics when they talk (down) to believers.

 

You're wrong. The use of derogatory and deliberately provocative language seems to be prevalent amongst everybody. It's a widespread human trait, not one that is more prevalent due to belief or not in gods, or an ability to ride bikes with one wheel or not.

 

This is precisely why the term "militant atheist" is meaningless, and six45ive has explained why with perfect clarity.

 

By simply trying to attach it to the sceptical community, you are actually being somewhat offensive. But feel free.

[onewheeldave]

You're wrong. The use of derogatory and deliberately provocative language seems to be prevalent amongst everybody. It's a widespread human trait, not one that is more prevalent due to belief or not in gods, or an ability to ride bikes with one wheel or not.

 

This is precisely why the term "militant atheist" is meaningless, and six45ive has explained why with perfect clarity.

 

By simply trying to attach it to the sceptical community, you are actually being somewhat offensive. But feel free.

 

Yes, you're right- the use of derogatory and deliberately provocative language is prevalent amongst all demographics.

 

However, sceptics and rationalists, IMO, should be way, way above the use of derogatory and deliberately provocative language, because, they are the ambassadoors for the use of rationality, for intelligent discussion, for discussion which effectively gets their points across.

 

We expect no better than insults and verbal violence from a ranting, deluded fundamentalist hate-filled preacher: rationalists and sceptics should be showing a better way.

[onewheeldave]

In general, I don't go out of my way to watch videos from the sceptical movement, precisely because, to me, the speakers all too often, come across as egotistical, superior, arrogant, and, insulting towards believers.

 

However, I would recommend this video highly-

 

 

the speaker is by astronomer and atheist Dr. Phillip Cary who is President of the James Randi Educational Foundation as well as creator of the online blog "Bad Astronomy,"

 

I'd recommend it to both atheists/sceptics, and also to believers who've come to the conclusion that too many atheists/sceptics, are of the type that some refer to as 'militant'.

 

As a rationalist and sceptic myself, I've come to despair of the clumsy efforts of the modern sceptical movement, post Dawkins, to spread what should be a positive message. IMO, their approach has actually had the opposite effect to that intended i.e. it's driven many people away from either an understanding, or, an appreciation of, atheism, rationality and scepticism.

 

So to see a prominent member of the sceptical movement pointing out that talking down to, or insulting, believers, is counter productive, is, to me, inspiring.

 

These days I dissasociate myself from atheists/sceptics, as, when it comes to discussions, I'm frequently appalled by their approach, their inexcusable misuses of 'rationality', the way they talk down to believers etc: generally, in thise discussions, I find I feel myself having more in common with the believers, than the sceptics!

 

I wish the kind of attitude displayed by the speaker in this video, were more evident amongst the sceptical movement, then maybe I could once again feel more able to be an advocate of scepticism/rationality.

[quisquose]

Yes, you're right- the use of derogatory and deliberately provocative language is prevalent amongst all demographics.

 

Well, yes, that's what I just said, but ...

 

In general, I don't go out of my way to watch videos from the sceptical movement, precisely because, to me, the speakers all too often, come across as egotistical, superior, arrogant, and, insulting towards believers.

 

You just can't help yourself can you?