The Trouble with Militant Atheist

Post Reply New Topic

I use the same standard for atheists and theists alike when determining militancy. IMHO the line is interjection, if people are minding their own business and talking about their faith or lack thereof and you can't help but butt in to dispute same, you might be edging into militant territory.

[img][77:43]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/TECH/social.media/02/28/facebook.like.button/t1larg.like.button.fb.jpg[/img]

Not sure I understand that.what does the operation ":" mean? I use "-->" to mean "implies", as with notation in set theory.



+1

On a side note, I've been called a number of things by atheists or agnostics for my beliefs before, "weak-willed", "opiated", and now we can add "perverse" to the list, although I don't really see the connection for that last one. It's strange that nobody has ever actually called me out on being irrational, which would be a most accurate description of faith.

Personally, I actually quite like working with atheists; or one thing, they tend not to just accept things at face value and are smarter than average. Religious people, of the non-fanatic kind, tend to be nicer than average. It all works out.

It is a relation. What I mean by it is that the pursuit of science is the pursuit of accurate fact, whether it is ugly or pretty, useful or troublesome. Science is the study of reality outside our senses, regardless of our senses. Art is the pursuit of that which expresses something that is not as accurate to concrete reality but more true to how we remember it or think of it. The Impressionist school captures our perception of motion or lighting in a way that even good equipment cannot replicate alone, and the expressionist school tells us more about what is going on within than you could capture with a camera.

By my thinking, faith differs from certainty in the same way. Certitude is one thing. It's something that you can gain by looking at charts and graphs. It can be expressed with mathematics. Faith might seem similar to someone who has never thought about the distinction, but the difference is clear. You don't have faith in your principles because of anything, but you have faith in them because you happen to feel strongly about them. You don't have faith that your friend is being truthful with you because you have some special knowledge or think you have some special knowledge, but you have faith in your friend out of simple trust. Faith is a belief that you have because it is good to have that belief, not because you can't disprove it.

The fact that some people have strong faith in the value of reason and logic does not negate this idea: on the contrary, it is arguably irrational to pay any attention to what is obviously true if allowing it to register makes you feel unhappy or causes you to be unpleasant toward others, but many people cling to that particular value even while acknowledging this, simply because they feel more clean somehow.

Actually, the worst thing I have found of atheists (of the non-argumentative kind) is a propensity for being a bit dour, though I don't consider this to be an unpleasant quality. I find it calming, and I enjoy their companionship for the same reason I like the Finnish. My perception of the Finnish is a people who are quiet, resilient and pleasantly woodsy even while being modern and enlightened in most practical respects, though I'm aware of the perils of stereotypes even while using them conversationally. Even then, you find plenty of atheists who are bouncing rays of sunshine, and there are enough Finns out there who are as loud and jocular as anybody. I think some people get a false impression that atheists are nasty, but you realize it's not exactly nastiness per se after you've gotten to know them better.

Frankly, I think there are some atheists who have something of a "hair shirt" sort of mentality, savvy?

Yup, hit the nail on the head there. you're pretty good at elucidating these things; I never realized I thought of it this way until you crystallized it.



Yeah, I haven't met a lot of either, but "militant" christians tend to appear holier-than-thou, and "militant" atheists tend to appear smarter-than-thou. Either -than-thou attitude is a real turn off.

*I put militant in quotations cos they're annoyingly adamant, but not actually pointing guns at me.

Hi Dox47,

"Interjection" into, or around, people when they "are minding their own business and talking about their faith or lack thereof", has very fine, and very important, lines, in the U.S.A.

"Minding their own business" has many legal connonations, firstly, "public" versus "private", secondly, "business" versus "licensed business", thirdly, "legal" versus "illegal" activities, etc.

"Faith" and/or "lack of faith" also has legal connonations, including factors of "location", "time", etc., as does the major element of "talking", as in conducting a "communication" or "declaration" in public or private.

Less than of legal concerns, the concerns of discourse are still very relevant involving the techniques of instilling, or making available, information, knowledge, beliefs, etc., from "preaching", "educating", "spreading", etc., through various forums and mediums, and arts of disputations.

One legal case I was involved with involved the obligations of medical documentations, and the disputation that the existence of refridgerators established the existance of the Christian God and the Sunday Sabbath beyond reasonable doubt. "Refridgerators proving God" is still ongoing "In the absence of supernatural forces, a bounded system can attain one and only one stable state. One sentence, it contains the first and second laws of thermodynamics. That 'one and only one', whats that all about? It's the first law of thermodynamics." Ambient room temperature answers that debate, but the word "ambient" is way too "Satanical & Militant" of an interjection in a university setting.

The "public" exhibition of the "Shroud of Berlin" was also challenged as "Militant", though determined to have been created in the last decade by Steven Steinman, though not nearly as controversial as the militancy of dung in urine.

Public proclamations for assigned Gods' desires is well now established: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
As is the contrary "nothing".

As distinct from public declaration, google "Two-Ton Ten Monument" for examples, and add Dr. Dobson for what's Godly prohibited in the private household being permitted and required in public and in the courtroom.

For interpretations of Gospel being protected from "Militant" justices in the Supreme Court of Lousiana, try understanding Judge James Best's mainly now removed citations of the Gospels' declaring "Render Unto Caesar" as mandating castration, before the Praetorian Guard (a "militant" group, too!). http://www.lasc.org/opinions/98O0122.opn.PDF
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/us/05castration.html

Then, "Little Green Men" endangers the U.S.A. with Asperger's: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -laws.html

Not objecting is often taken as acquiescing (here at WP too!! !), and as Robert Conrad argued, spending money with "In God We Trust" emblazoned on it, is fully acknowledging and accepting this Nation's God, as having no such proclamation on the currency is just as "Militant" as requiring the inscription of "There Is No God" on all of the currency.

Labor Laws also take priority over "cults", Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), and so goes the mandatory pledge and medicine.

(Anything about "Bongs" and religion gets a suspension from educational places too!! ! Those "militants"! !!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
(Remember Ken Starr and the shape of....???)

Tadzio

I am not going to come back with anything from the bible because I am not a Christian. You would know this if you would have read the thread!
I think that judging people for what they do or don't believe in is wrong. I don't know why you are assuming that I would attack you with the bible.
I find that judgmental. I hate organized religion and would never judge anyone based on religion. You seem to think that all religious people are judgmental which is very judgmental of you. I don't think that you have met every religious person in the world to judge.
I am not a Christian or Jew so I would probably get judged more than you. My soul gets judged by many religious people and my mind gets judged by some atheist. It's very insulting to have the 2 most important parts of me judged.

What kind of books do you read? Read and study all arguments for God. Come up with your own best arguments for and against God and compare them together and see which makes more sense.

I was an agnostic leaning towards God's existence some while ago, and have now become an agnostic leaning towards his non-existence. Take the time to do some studying instead of making a post here complaining about how you're being treated.