The Trouble with Militant Atheist

Post Reply New Topic

If you actually look at the survey, it explicitly allows atheists to express their feelings towards the image of God they have developed from cultural exposure and all of that. It does not entail any form of "atheists are angry at a being who does not exist" kind of thinking, only the kinds of reactions brought about by the mental image they have of God.

I actually agree with your statement here. I am not suggesting that they are angry at a God they believe in... only that they are angry at a God conception they don't believe in.

"Despite" makes this wording seem twisted, as there is nothing wrong with being angry with a God conception you don't believe in. A lot of people also get angry at villains in fiction.

I have never met a militant ajokerist.

You might, if Jokerists were 90% of the population, went around knocking on doors, and generally insisted loudly at every opportunity that Joker was the savior and that everyone would be happier if they worshiped him.

Pretty much..... The label "atheist" is utterly contingent upon the label "theist".

You know, I stopped being a militant atheist after I realized that I had never met anyone outside of my parents, who are weirdos, who actually believes most of the Old Testament stories. If I ever do, there is no barrier of consanguinity preventing me from violently strangling that person in the name of reason, but to this day I have never actually met any other Christian, except for campus evangelists who are more hated by other Christians than by any atheist, who actually believes in the Dr. Dino style of Christianity. Hopefully, I never will.

I don't really have any serious issue with people who go door-to-door evangelizing their religion. I actually think it's nice that they're putting themselves in a position to face criticism eye-to-eye, one-on-one and hear other perspectives. Some people, if they are wedded to a belief, would rather stick their head in the sand. I always try to be neighborly and polite to the Jehovah's Witness people when they come by.

I'm not a militant atheist. I'm not militant against people who have an insightful, intelligent outlook on their beliefs. I am militant against people who don't care at all whether anything they believe is actually true. I am militant against people who stick their head in the sand when confronted with any idea that doesn't quite work with their views. I actually find thinking religious people to be nicer than most of the skeptics I've known. How can I be militant against someone I like?

Although I do think that being educated, especially in the sciences, makes you more likely to become a skeptic, I don't think that becoming a skeptic makes you more educated, in the sciences or otherwise. I don't think it's a direct causal relationship borne of having information or ideas that contradict religion. You just learn to deal better with the idea that you could be wrong. You learn that being wrong is not a destination, but it's a chance to press a new limit. You also learn that disproved ideas don't lose their value just because they're disproved: for example, Ptolemy's model of the solar system is still admired for its beauty even though it's now almost universally regarded as incorrect. I don't see any real conflict between being religious and having an education, though. A lot of religious people have an intellectual mindset, and they're just as good as any non-religious thinker.

Great post William, I like your perspective.

It's a stereotype.

Indeed. I, for one, am sick and tired of honest weaponry being unfairly associated with those creepy cross-touchers.

So far we know that you've studied it in school, but probably not at all outside of school because science bores you to death. You openly admit to being ignorant in the subject of science (which is actually many subjects, but whatever), and you think based on that amount of information that the big bang theory is incorrect. Tell me, do you even know what the big bang theory says? Can you explain it in your own words? I want to know what you think is incorrect, because it doesn't even sound like you know what you're arguing against.

You seem to have an idea about the extremists that go door-to-door that is completely opposite of what they are in reality.




Militant, militant, militant, militant, militant, ad nauseum. A skeptic that just says the truth, that religion is utter BS and that people under that influence are being stupid is not deserving of a militant atheist.

Being nice does not make a person less stupid or less deserving of criticism for choices she made without thinking things through . Nor does it make her less responsible for the consequences of the acceptance of superstition. Because it has consequences.


This is bull. Buying into a religion, an irrational outlook of life, with irrational requirements for being a good people and irrational beliefs. It is by definition an irrational act. And not being rational about something as big and life affecting as your choice of belief and moral framework, is something that I would not find to be very compatible with being intelligent or self-critical. At the very least, if you show me two persons with the same exact qualifications and experience, one believes in a BS religion and the other does not, I would consider the no-religious one to be much smarter than the other.

I'm sorry, Vexcalibur, but I think you're being "militant" yourself when saying all that. Ok, that's your opinion, and it's not a matter of atheists being prohibited of giving their opinions. The problem is the way you say it. Also, you can't deny that it's kind of prejudice to consider a religious person who studied as much as a non-religious less smart only because he/she believes in a supreme being.

And just to make it clear, I'm not Christian.

I can't be a militant atheist, because I am not an atheist.

However, being religious is intrinsically irrational, unless of course you are the religious leader who is getting all the benefits of the superstition of others. That's why I have no doubt that some priests out there are very intelligent. But that's another topic.

If you come to tell me not only that you believe in some deity (because my generalization is not about theists but about religious people), but that your silly belief in that deity is the source of your moral framework then you are taking a life important decision (The source of your morality, what you will do on all your Sundays, the people you will obey) over an absurdly irrational belief. You are enslaving yourself through nonsense, and I think doing that is intrinsically stupid. It is not a prejudice, because I am judging them not for what I think they are doing, but because of what they are doing. You are allowed to claim that what I am doing is "judice".

It could be "judice", then. Considering people's beliefs a stupidity is ok; this is what you think, and I think we're free to think whatever we want about everything. But, again, the problem is what you're doing with your opinion, and the way you're doing it. When you say it here, for example, as a response to another person, it shows that at least you're trying to argue. And this doesn't make you a militan itself, but it's the first step to this, let's say. Atheist or not.

I agree with you that there are many people out there benefiting from other people's "blindness" (because unfortunately this is what happens to some) and this is not nice. But you can't generalise it about religious people, too.

And actually I didn't understand some of your points. You say you're not atheist, but you call believing in some deity an "irrationality". How is it then?

As I told you, I'm not Christian, and I don't have this thing of having to "believe". I have a different understanding of this.

I'm not sure what they are when I'm not looking, but the ones I've met have been gems as far as I can tell. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I tend to smile a lot and behave with exceptional civility when I am confronted with a genuinely sincere person. It does tend to bring out the nice and the thoughtful in others.

Oh, but I do. You know me. You know very well that I have never had any hesitation around here to state clearly that my reason for being an atheist is that religion is outright nonsense. I just also happen to like many of the people who believe in that nonsense. I know they aren't as well informed as I am on certain subjects, and I know that I am somewhat unusual in how I am wired in general. If I can be accused of being any kind of atheist, I'm a pompous and egotistical one, but I am more justified than most in being pompous and egotistical.

Of course it has consequences, but I think that religion is a symptom, not a cause. I think that reason and progressive inquiry might or might dissolve a person's belief in religion, but it would almost certainly make that person a much more responsible thinker. On the other hand, I am doubtful of whether merely being an atheist makes a person a more responsible thinker; in fact, I think that turning from fanatical religion to another form of fanaticism can be just as destructive as religious fanaticism, if not in some cases moreso.

Although I am fairly certain that there would be fewer religious people if more people behaved as what I would regard as a responsible thinker, I see the dissolution of religious belief as an inconsequential and, in my opinion, absolutely harmless side-effect.

That's your bailewick. I have encountered enough religious agnostics who believe in dumbass ideologies that I doubt earnestly that religion is the only game in town as far as irrationality is concerned. I only say when justifiably piqued that religion ought to be banned, and I generally would never say so around perfectly decent religious folk. I don't have to be piqued in the least to think that libertarians ought to be placed in an insane asylum and put under heavy medication just for being libertarians.

Besides, the strongest agnostics in the world can be those who cling, although tentatively, to their religious beliefs. Having something in one's belief system that fills one with doubt can often serve to give one more practice than usual at self-doubt...which, of course, I highly value.