BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p

Subject: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 02:44 PM

Here are some questions offered to elevate the discussion on this thread.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that militant atheism is a religion.

To what god does this militant religion obey or pray to?

If it is a militant religion, does this mean it is a "bad" religion and should be censured?

Does this mean that any militant religion should be censured and attacked?

Should there be militant Protestant/Catholic, Judaic/Islamic, wars as well as Non-belief/Belief ones?

Is religion something that should never be criticized and held as somehow sacrosanct because it is a religion? How about the Crusades or beheadings in Islamic countries?

Atheists (militant or not) are attacked all the time. Does this mean that those religious adherents who do so are intolerant? (Rhetorical question, of course they are).

Are all "militant" atheists necessarily "anti-theist"?

Why are some militant atheists self-proclaimed agnostics and others not?

What rituals, rites, ceremonies, oblations or other church events do militant
atheists practice that make them militant atheists a religion?

Does saying that one is a Protestant mean that they automatically deride
Catholics? Does saying that one is a passionate (read militant) non-believer mean that
they deride believers?

Can militant atheists be considered holy? If they are a militant religion
then why not? Can there be a Saint Dawkins, Saint Hitchens or can they be popes
or monsignors or priests? Is that acceptable to those who attack atheists?

What bible do the militant atheists follow? The gospel according to Hitchens or
Dawkins or Harris? (They all differ if you bother to read them).

Do militant atheists believe in "just wars" like some Catholics do?

Anyone care to recite a militant "atheist prayer"?

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Musket gettin.. can't be arsed
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 04:01 PM

I refer the honourable gentleman to the previous thread.

Where, if he cared to read and understand, he would see that the premise of the thread title is false.   Honourable and right honourable members opposite fail to take into account that militant atheism is an oxymoron. Some people use the term in an assertive manner while for for the vast majority it means that religion is something to do with someone else.

In the meantime, the one true path consisting of co Messiahs and associated gnome holds the answers to such questions. Once we secure the services of a token woman to do the more menial tasks we shall be as good a religion as any other.

Seriously, this has been flogged to death. If you fail to understand, resort to Wikipedia because I for one will fill this thread with the flippant nonsense it richly deserves.

No offence and all that bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 04:08 PM

Prepare for the Coming of the Great Pumpkin in the coming month.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 08:39 PM

What is the "p" at the end for?

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 09:58 PM

whilst dictionaries certainly stress the theism aspect of religion, the meaning of the word in dictionaries certainly goes beyond that to include any belief system.
there is resistence from many strong atheists to this ,I think because, they like to insist that their position is a totally objective alternative to a faith position. IMO ,the reality is that atheism is a faith position.
either way, I am not in favour of censuring their position, rather engage in discussion in constructive, respectful attitude.
sadly some take disagreement to be disrespectful.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 01:00 AM

Atheism is a rejection of superstition and the patriarchy that Western organized religions propagate. Atheists choose not to accept the definition of their position as applied by those who are steeped in religion. We choose to define ourselves.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 01:27 AM

And what do Humanists believe in?

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 02:47 AM

Occasionally, very occasionally I wish to debate with pete. Ok, when I want to he doesn't and when I take the piss out of literal beliefs of ancient translations he is in an angry stage and ignores me.

Which from his perspective is reasonable I suppose.

But that is the point.

Perspective.

Some people think that not having any faith is in itself a stance and from their perspective cannot understand how anyone can dismiss faith without exploring it.

Easy!

Here in the UK at any rate, religion is no longer thrust upon you and neither was it thrust upon the parents of anybody with young children now. Unless it is either through familyor sschools that still break the law.

So yes, atheism isn't a stance. I don't have a stance on on soap operas story lines but there is an industry of magazines and chat shows working on the assumption everybody does know and care. I have never watched Knob Enders, Emmerdale Farm (other than one episode I supplied props for funnily enough) and Ena Sharples was shagging Albert Tatlock the last time I saw Coronation St.

But there again, such programmes have replaced religion for many as I do admit that we all need some form of escapism in our lives. Religion being one such form, albeit an old fashioned one by choice rather than coercion these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 06:11 AM

But there again, such programmes have replaced religion for many as I do admit that we all need some form of escapism in our lives.

I think just as many religious people enjoy the antics of EastEnders et al as Atheists. Religion was never a matter of mere escapism.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 08:14 AM

musket presupposes anger on my part, which is not the case, but maybe anger would be appropriate. I imagine that if I were to badmouth someone dear to those who regularly disrespect God, that they would be angry.
btw= I have just noticed that our new laptop automatically capitalizes " I ".
it must have thoughts above its station! lol.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 10:27 AM

Hi,

The p stands for "part two" that I couldn't get to fit on the title.

The reason this issue persists is that non-believers in the area civil rights are the new blacks and gays. They are continuously attacked or insulted. The so-called "militant atheist" is a fabrication and an attack on non-belief by some religious people who claim to be neutral and non judgemental but are in fact pushing their religious agenda to "outlaw" atheism by denigrating it. Most of these ostensible Christians or whatever religion have never really read any of the books that they claim to discredit.

The proof of this is the nature of this thread, an out and out attack on non-belief by
attempting to equate it with a fundamentalist religion. It won't work.

Religious progressive types should look into how they allow this type of misinformation
to go on. They should be the first to condemn those who would make specious claims such as the title of this thread. The result of ignoring this issue places those with a more "liberal" religious view into the ranks of those religious fundamentalist groups for allowing this attack to go on.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Amos
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 10:53 AM

It is perfectly possible for an atheist to get militant about his assertions of the non-existence of God, but it is an exercise in semantic folly. But even if he were to do so, it would not be in any sense of the word a religion, anymore than refusing to eat vegetables is a form of vegetarianism.

Additionally, there are so many characterizations of godhead loose in the wild that a militant atheist would have an exhausting time of it rebutting them severally and individually, if he really wanted to be thorough.

I have great respect for the Infinite, to the tiny degree I have been able to perceive or sense it, but I think anthropomorphicizing it is about the silliest thing anyone has ever tried to do. It is tricky enough to stay in touch with one's own spiritual nature, and cosmic hubris just defeats the purpose thereof.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 02:51 PM

Amos, this makes sense to me. Unfortunately there are others on this thread and elsewhere that don't agree with you. They have an agenda called "let's get the militant atheist" (whatever and wherever they are.)

I should remind my fellow Americans that atheists are discouraged if not downright prohibited to serve in public office in the US.

The Senate and Congress are force fed prayer breakfasts in violation of the US Constitution Separation Clause.

The military, in particular, the Air Force is force feeding its cadets in Christian theology.

Is there any wonder that there is a certain militancy in regard to atheism?

In the meantime, service in the armed forces has become a militant religion.

The US in on the brink of entering a religious civil war in Syria, one it can't win, and the outcome will be a religious sect at the helm of the government. (Alawite or Sunni).

Is there any wonder about a certain militancy in regard to atheism? Maybe it's a militancy in the defense of sanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 06:13 PM

militant_atheism_has_become_a_religion

My God, some of you are thicker than arctic molasses.

I posted the linked article for discussion in the dim past when some thought that a reasonable discussion about religion or the lack thereof was possible on this forum.

Note that the title is different from the URL I used the URL phrase in the thread title because it was the easiest thing to cut and paste. If you have a problem with the sentence "Militant atheism has become a religion" take it up with Salon.com Internet technology department.

The link was to a short article excerpted from "The Bonobo and the Atheist" and amusing collection of musings from one of Stringsinger's
favorite atheists (according to Stringsinger in the thread without the "p") who speculated that certain "thinkers" described as "militant atheists" often display the same traits ascribed to the religious zealots they decry.

I made the observation that there were people like that on the Mudcat whereupon they showed up on the thread, self identified and proceeded to prove my hypothesis beyond all limits of my imagination. I hope it is not bragging to say that my imagination can reach some wild heights but I never expected to have another link to the self same article being put forth to disprove the original title of certain folks starting a religion and continue the joke for weeks to show that they were anti-religious.

So now we have the usual suspects (2 of 3 anyway) trying to rekindle the discussion for unfathomable reasons. My wild imagination is telling me that my thoughts and words as expressed on this thread and the original will be mischaracterized in the most hyperbolic ways. With or without my participation.

I am afraid it will mostly have to be without this time. But I have included this post so that anyone who is curious can read what got so many panties wadded into a bunch.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 07:48 PM

""So now we have the usual suspects (2 of 3 anyway) trying to rekindle the discussion for unfathomable reasons.""

Laughable comment from one who strongly supported all the anti Atheist threads, none of which were started by Atheists attacking the religious.

Quite the reverse, in fact!

Maybe the the OP of this thread thought that free speech meant the right to present the Atheist point of view, in answer to our Sailor Boy's distortions.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Musket praying ish
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 02:37 AM

Frustratingly, I agreed to bury the nautical hatchet so one avenue of amusement has been closed to me. (Hello Sailor.. In the nicest interpretation of the phrase.)

Nice that pete has an atheist keyboard to contend with, such trials make for thinking before typing. Perhaps in reply, I might point out the old chestnut that blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Amos makes a good point with vegetarianism. Not sure you could identify an atheist by the smell of their farts though in the way you can a vegetarian.....

String singer has eloquently pointed out how The USA is in the process of being taken over by the forces of Dumbfuckistan, although I usually get shouted at for mentioning it, in the same way that lying to Christians isn't really ly..... Whoops!

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 07:13 AM

Unbelievable!!!!! Now we have part 2 of the pseudo intellectual ravings of Musket, shaw, stringdriver, don wizjet and seaman stayns, who are now joined by a few more posing nomarks.

Is there a tither of sense between any of youse?

We have a world economic meltdown and all you do is waffle on with all this crap.

Get with the programme dudes and jump on board for the big issue(Or are some of you still selling them?)

Peace and love

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 11:28 AM

"Here in the UK at any rate, religion is no longer thrust upon you"

This is unquestionably not true of the U.S.

"We have a world economic meltdown and all you do is waffle on with all this crap."

We also have a religious war brewing in Syria which brings this issue into focus.
A world economic meltdown is a result in part of attempting to use taxpayer dollars to fund religious wars.


"Militant atheism has become a religion" take it up with Salon.com Internet technology department. "

This was used as a pretext to go after certain people on Mudcat by stirring up trouble insisting that they were wrong. It had to be answered. This was by no means an attempt at a discussion whereby reasonable conclusions could be reached but a diatribe to accuse atheists as being narrow-minded and pig-headed.
And it was done by someone who is a religionist. When a war of words about this issue is started, then only a talking through of the issue can cool it down.

"I made the observation that there were people like that on the Mudcat"

Incorrect attributions were made to people on Mudcat for the purpose of advancing a specious idea which needed discussion. Atheism is not a militant religion and those who made this statement have only themselves to blame
when they attack non-believers and elicit rebuttals.

It's no good to hide behind an article or quote from someone when this
accusation, and it is an accusation, that non-believers are some kind of fundamentalists. It's a thinly disguised attack and should be treated as such.

It's the problem religionists have all the time. They think they are being
objective but the motivation underlying the attack is always there, to discredit
atheism by making it a fundamentalist religion. That doesn't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 01:35 PM

Musket, I appreciate and admire your efforts in hatchet burying. Though I am a little taken aback by the continuation of this topic, doing so without personal insults is the better way.

Stringsinger, Are you familiar with the concept of the difference between some an all. I would have thought so, but your behavior indicates otherwise. I have stated several times that I did not mean to say that all atheists are militant. I have even expressed discomfort with the term.

But the term has existed since the French Revolution. and the definition according to the Urban Dictionary is clear enough.

1.         Militant Atheist
        
A militant atheist is one who is hostile towards religion. They differ from moderate atheists because they have the desire to propagate atheism and also hold religion to be harmful. Militant atheism was an integral part of the French Revolution, Soviet Union, Cultural Revolution, and is expresses itself today in the ideas of the New Atheist authors.

To be clear, my thesis, which is essentially the same as Frans De Waal, an atheist that you apparently admired once, is that SOME atheists are just a rigid and dogmatic as the religious zealots they decry. I would consider what you have said on this thread so far, not to mention the reams of comments on other threads and the threads you started yourself to be proof enough to include you in the Atheist dogmatist group. I would think that many of self-described atheists on this form might describe your behavior on this subject to be zealous.

Now Stringsinger, Being a militant Atheist, if you are one, is nothing to be ashamed of or deny. Be proud that you have the desire to propagate atheism and also hold religion to be harmful. It is who you are. The 200 year old label applied to that behavior should not matter. Be proud of who you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 02:10 PM

urban dictionary sounds good to me , jack.
I don't think I would put stringsinger too far up the militant scale, as he has been far more concilatory and respectful of late, and especially compared to some others on these threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 02:22 PM

pete, It seems to me that the Urban Dictionary does not define the term by the degree of militancy, but by the goals. If that definition is accepted, then anyone who promotes atheism and decries religion is a "militant atheist."

I think that Stringsinger's behavior on these threads can best be described as obliquely confrontational anti-religious zealotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 04:21 PM

""We have a world economic meltdown and all you do is waffle on with all this crap.""

If you're so keen on discussing that, start a fucking thread about it and maybe you'll get some contributors.

All threads are about what the titles indicate, as should be obvious, even to trolling nomarks like yourself.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 04:55 PM

I believe that Don(Wyziwyg)T's last post violate's the terms of use and is just the sort of thing which should be deleted.

concerened's post might be taken as banter. Don's just seems cranky and mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 01:41 AM

Perhaps one day the penny will drop. Using religion to bolster opinions of others is about as good a personal insult as you can get?

My "piss taking" on any thread where people are judged by their faith or lack of will be my contribution and those doing so will get short shrift from me regardless.

If people are shallow enough to think that "atheist" means either promoting a stance or having an aversion to someone else's stance, they really should go out and buy a new dictionary. Whether you like it or not, atheist is the whitewash liberally coated onto the backs of the millions of people for whom religion or indeed lack of doesn't form any part of their makeup.

I suppose that trying to advocate the point to those for whom religion either holds them together or has hitherto broken them isn't ever going to get me anywhere? Doesn't alter the fact though all the same.

Interestingly, having just put the phone down and thought about it, I ask myself if my overall indifference to organised religion has been tested by these many debates?

No.

Not a single jot.

I still respect those for whom the belonging and comfort blanket means a lot. I still fail to understand how those who take it literally can retain their faith and I still get angry when those in positions of power try to inflict religious values on the secular majority.

But that doesn't describe "atheist. " It describes Musket and by a remarkable coincidence describes Ian.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 07:28 AM

Steady on there wizzjet!! don't get carried away. I am one to many for you.

For once I agree with jack...it is absolutely disgraceful that a so called intelligent? person cant take a little carefree banter without resorting to appropriouse epithets, especially since you waffle on about free speech in an earlier post.
,
But hey !! I am good, I am gracious, it is, after all jack, playing into wizzjets hand to get rid of him.

He will only kick the slats out of his playpen and bore us all rigid by starting a zillion post screaming about his perceived rights: rights people like me have fought for.

In my humble opinion and judging by his former postings, this buffoon is a known trouble maker.

Some one who should put his doubtful talents into something constructive like counting beans or putting heads on broom sticks.. have a nice day dear heart..

hang on tho!!!..stupid name wxzy stuff,pitiful attempts at stentorian judgementalism , looks like there is bit of radio ham going on there? You just have to be one of them anoraks... or you are into train spotting? go on fess up, you are aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Musket par for the course
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 10:00 AM

Whilst not having any idea who concerned is, I welcome his or her posts.

Not that I have the slightest idea what they are saying of course. But in slagging off Jack, Don, my co Messiah and associated gnome, they don't tend to pick on me which means I don't have to find a private corner of the playground to cry and cut myself up.

See? even trolls can be failures. Although reading concerned, I do get an insight into what Goofus would post if he ever read and actually understood what others write.

Concerned just does it for kicks of course. The sort of person you wouldn't wish to see hanging around school yards anyway.

Concerned, I couldn't interest you in a second hand cassock could I? Only been used once as part of a failed bingo night ajd never been worn by a person of the cloth.

Just wondered. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 10:37 AM

Don't know what you are talking about muscrat..

Only thing is, I don't like toady's, fence sitters, woosy liberals, ginger cake eaters, express reading second hand cassock sellers, anymore than I like buffoons, yeggs, biscuit chomping armchair lefties and pseudo intellectuals like your little chums; shaw, wizzjet,stringsinger and jerk the sailor (mind, I believe there is still hope for him if only he drops his nautical pretensions) et al.

Now muscrat, you seem to have some knowledge of these clowns; is wizzjet a closet anorak?

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 10:58 AM

Rather partial to ginger cake actually.

I would only read The Daily Express on the same terms as The Indescribablyboring, ie you can download it for nowt. Paying for it just encourages Di conspiracies.

Not sure I can help you. I do work with occasionally and can put you in touch with people who can help you though. If you use the drop in centres in most UK cities, you don't even need a GP referral either.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 11:13 AM

""I believe that Don(Wyziwyg)T's last post violate's the terms of use and is just the sort of thing which should be deleted.

concerened's post might be taken as banter. Don's just seems cranky and mean.""

According to your rather skewed view of things, my remarks are cranky and mean, while ""Unbelievable!!!!! Now we have part 2 of the pseudo intellectual ravings of Musket, shaw, stringdriver, don wizjet and seaman stayns, who are now joined by a few more posing nomarks."" is perfectly acceptable banter.

I think you have really lost your tiny mind (and violates does not require an apostrophe).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 11:36 AM

What barnacle balls is saying is quite simple even for you wizjets.. You resort to the use of the F word, whilst I use properly constructed banter..I aint smug and judgmental aaaand, I keep my cool something you really should learn...getting with it now?

By the way;if you find anything untrue in anything I have said about you, please point it out wont you?.

By your every response to me you expose yourself as the fraud you undoubtedly are.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 12:15 PM

In the OP, Stringsinger asked some questions, hoping to relieve Mudcat of the topic for some time. I would like to endorse this heroic goal, so here is my Q&A version:

Is militant atheism a religion? No; neither is militant polytheism. (To be a religion, some more specific content is required, though not necessarily a god or a holy book or praying.)
Are militant atheists militant? Yes.
Are militant atheists as militant as militant polytheists? Some are, some are more, some are less so.
Is atheism a special source of militance? No, ideologies are, whether atheist, religious, or other.
Is militance against other militance/militants justified? Only in rare cases.
Is an ideology justified if it propagates justified militance against other militants? Not by that fact alone.
Do atheist and religious militant ideologists of have things in common, such as saints? Frequently, though interpretations usually differ from one ideology to the other.
Should missionary zeal be limited by law? Yes, in the widest possible limits.
Should deriding other ideologies be forbidden? No, but reasonible persons should strongly discourage it, even if they share the deriders' criticism.
Can a state be neutral in ideological matters? Not really, but it should try.

Glad to be of service.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 04:42 PM

My God! Now I am agreeing with Concerereneded!! Watch out for the second coming folks! The Apok-a-lipps is upon us!

DonT-Hoe-T thanks for the attention but you are obviously delusional if you think I care what you say.

"If people are shallow enough to think that "atheist" means either promoting a stance or having an aversion to someone else's stance, they really should go out and buy a new dictionary. "

No one on this forum is saying that. Frans de Waal, leading Atheist writer and thought leader, much admired by the original poster. Has said that SOME atheists (please NOTE the word SOME which obviously does not apply to all and thus does not alter the definition of the word.) SOME atheists, Some Atheists are zealous and dogmatic, in the same way that some religionists are.

Then there is the concept of the militant atheist, which exists as per the Urban Dictionary and as evidenced in deed at least as far back as the French Revolution. NO one is saying that all atheists are zealous and dogmatic. But it is clear that some people are dogmatic and zealous in their opposition to religion. If you are saying that religious education is child abuse as Dawkins frequently does, you are according to the accepted definition of the Urban Dictionary, a militant atheist. I don't know how it could be clearer or easier to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 05:43 PM

And wizzjet, this is a friendly banter site.. not a spelling site..over to you o judgmental..or maybe mental one? oh... and violates does require plenty of shade..or is that violets....keep out of the sun old bean..it can turn you funny..and that would never do..or would it?

maybes then we could start with a semblance of a personality for you?

have a really nice day..xc

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 05:47 PM

jack..please...........? for your own sanity...get a life?

I really am concerned about you.....

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 06:14 PM

What is militant? From Latin "militans" = "being a soldier, fighting". Atheists who fight someone or something for not being atheist are called militant atheists. In modern usage, "fighting" includes propaganda aimed at weakening its target. Dawkins would certainly subscribe. The question of what exactly he is fighting has become part of the fight.

(Note that Urban Dictionary is a valuable but extremely unreliable source, being written by presumed slang speakers themselves.)

Criticism is distinguished from militance/fighting by being aimed at particular features, theoretically allowing for reforms and corrections. Luther's theses are an example.

Dogmatic is a completely different notion: basing one's teaching on foundations that one excludes from all questioning. Dogmatic persons act authoritarian against their followers, but need not necessarily fight the heathen.

Zeal can have any target, but neither militants nor dogmatists can exist without it.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 06:20 PM

>>jack..please...........? for your own sanity...get a life?

I really am concerned about you..<<

Ah! The balance of the universe has been restored.

I have a life, Thank you. I'm watching the NFL and posting this nonsense during the breaks.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 06:23 PM

To avoid misunderstandings: a militant atheist is someone who fights persons, institutions, or teachings for reasons directly related to her or his atheism. Many militant atheists concede that believers should not be fought if they keep their faith to themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 06:23 PM

(Note that Urban Dictionary is a valuable but extremely unreliable source, being written by presumed slang speakers themselves.)

Point taken.

Note that for my purposes, I simply have to show that the phrase is in common usage and obviously NOT something I have made up and accusing all atheists of.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 01:21 AM

Phew! Thank Clapton for that. Urban dictionary is fine by me. For a minute there I thought you were going to invoke that Webster bloke. This side of the pond, we were taught in school that due to inaccuracies, lack of original research carrying on through the editions etc that Webster is testament to there being no reliable American English dictionary.

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding going back to the op of the op as it were.   I for one am well aware of de Waal using the word "some" when talking of actions and thoughts of atheists. What is irritating about such a stance is that it is about as relevant a "some ginger haired people" as a debating point. Sure there are such people who rally against organised religions and even some who feel that perpetuation of any superstition is ultimately damaging to society, but to group them as atheist as a label signifying their stance is odd to say the least.



Anyway back to reality.   I have to find the direction of Knott End on a compass and get the door mat so if you will excuse me.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Mr Happy
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 07:10 AM

Is there a regional list of Militant atheist temples available anywhere?

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Musket etc
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 12:06 PM

Not on paper. A number of people have such lists in their heads though.

Mostly the other side of the pond from where I am, but one in Kent judging by one contributor...

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 02:31 PM

"Musket, I appreciate and admire your efforts in hatchet burying. Though I am a little taken aback by the continuation of this topic, doing so without personal insults is the better way."

I agree with this and am glad you finally see it that way.

"Stringsinger, Are you familiar with the concept of the difference between some an all. I would have thought so, but your behavior indicates otherwise. I have stated several times that I did not mean to say that all atheists are militant. I have even expressed discomfort with the term."

I don't agree with the Urban Dictionary in it's definition. I don't think
a militant atheist has to be fervently hostile to religion. I think this would be the province of an "anti-theist". I am not hostile to religion but
I think it needs to be questioned as one would question a political philosophy. Without any hostility, I see it ultimately as a delusion and
I'm not hostile to deluded people.

"But the term has existed since the French Revolution. and the definition according to the Urban Dictionary is clear enough."

" Militant atheism was an integral part of the French Revolution, Soviet Union, Cultural Revolution, and is expresses itself today in the ideas of the New Atheist authors."

I don't see this. The French Revolution was instigated by a priest, Robespierre and this has nothing to do with the so-called new atheist authors who don't agree with each other conclusively.

"To be clear, my thesis, which is essentially the same as Frans De Waal, an atheist that you apparently admired once, is that SOME atheists are just a rigid and dogmatic as the religious zealots they decry."

This of course is true. However, there is a certain bias that occurs when
this information is used to form the idea of atheism as something
that is "wrong".



" I would consider what you have said on this thread so far, not to mention the reams of comments on other threads and the threads you started yourself to be proof enough to include you in the Atheist dogmatist group. I would think that many of self-described atheists on this form might describe your behavior on this subject to be zealous."

Not necessarily. I have been painted as a dogmatist but I think that's a dangerous label. I am not a fundamentalist anything. This labeling is
one thing that can be used as a weapon to denigrate non-belief. Also,
regarding Frans De Waal, I admire him immensely but also consider
that he may have misinterpreted what some atheists are saying as I think that may be the case with many on Mudcat.

"Now Stringsinger, Being a militant Atheist, if you are one, is nothing to be ashamed of or deny. Be proud that you have the desire to propagate atheism and also hold religion to be harmful. It is who you are. The 200 year old label applied to that behavior should not matter. Be proud of who you are."

I don't believe that I need to be proud of non-belief. I want to propagate
intelligent and unbiased thought about this issue, however and not have
vague, mystical, ambiguous and "holy" thoughts remain uncriticized
and used to denigrate non-belief. The nature of this thread remains
as a means of criticizing certain aspects of non-belief that is not understood completely. Dawkins, for example, is not openly hostile
to religion per se. He is incensed by "honor killings", "beheadings",
the subjugation of women through dress codes, the violence propagated
by Christians, (they think they are real) and other religious atrocities
that are supported by some more moderate and less enthusiastic religious
people. My point is this.

Why bring this discussion onto a thread and expect everyone to
agree with this premise? What is the motivation for starting this
discussion? I am suspicious that there is an attempt to put all non-
believers into a category that really belies the nature of non-belief
as they inquire as to the validity of religious pursuits.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 02:37 PM

I cannot help but think that the displayed ignorance here seems to be intentional. The only person that I know saying " Militant atheism has become a religion " is the IT person at Salon who probably misread the title of the article. I profusely apologize for repeating that error and the obvious anguish it seems to cause y'all.

The title of the article is "Has Militant atheism become a religion?" my answer to that would be "no" but it appears that SOME people who are militant atheists as per the Urban Dictionary" definition are as dogmatic and zealous as the religious people the decry. (please note that I did not say all religious people. I only mean to include the religious zealots that that anti-religious zealots decry. )

If you all really think that a typo on a URL on Salon.com is worth so much discussion, by all means carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 03:02 PM

"If you all really think that a typo on a URL on Salon.com is worth so much discussion, by all means carry on."

I think it needs to be questioned and discussed rationally. Who are the religious zealots and who decides who they are? Is it possible that a person can be called
a religious zealot one moment and then not another? Is it possible that a person
can practice religious zealotry in one area and not in another?

My objection is that rigid thinking through labels encourage misunderstanding
about non-belief.

I think that those who are sensitive about this issue need to be more informed about what people of non-belief are saying. I really think Dawkins is being maligned, here. His probing is as a scientist, not a demagogue as he is being portrayed. I refer people to his interviews with religious adherents to see how he really works.

Frans De Waal is a product of his own culture which is not known to foster
non-belief widely. Dutch Reformed Church is strong there.
His "I don't care" attitude is fine but doesn't shed light
on the nature of non-belief.

Notice, I don't use the word "atheist" as applied to myself, because it
engenders a kind of negative labeling that has been given to minorities in Civil Rights issues. My preferred label (if we have to use one at all) is Freethinker and even that suggest ambiguity. Maybe we need to throw out all the labels, such as "militant",especially the ones that are used to make others "wrong".

I think this discussion has merits because it illuminates the tendency toward rigid thinking and intolerance. It has to be recognized that the Civil War in Syria
and the breaking down of the Arab Spring has religion as its basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 05:30 PM

What Dawkins has done in the writing and promotion of "The God Delusion" is certainly militant atheism according to the Urban Dictionary and Frans der Waal. In Dawkins' TED talk about it he admits to opposing religion and he obviously is promoting an anti-religion point of view. Since you also are anti-religion and promote atheism but do not want us to call what you and Mr. Dawkins are trying to sell to us selling atheism, not because the word does not fit but because, you personally do not like the connotations, you are not technically a "miltant atheist."

I can think of several alternate words and phrases to describe your participation in and starting of this discussion, but to call you them would violate the terms of use of this board.

So let me simply say that your premise is, to say the least, dubious.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 01:10 AM

There you go again, just because Prof Dawkin would be comfortable with a label such as you describe (although neither of us has ever asked him his view. .) you assume anybody with a view different to yours is some form of acolyte of his.

Why?

Is it that we are both British? Is it because neither of us have a religious faith? Buggered if I know what else it could be? You seem to know a lot about him anyway when I mention that all the Abrahamic religions don't consider their children as religious till they have a rites of passage of some description, you pounced on it and said we were all just quoting Dawkins. Presumably forgetting The Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, chief Rabbi and myriad Islamic clerics.

Can you for once read an opinion without invoking your fascination with Dawkin?

Early in the morning. Can't remember if its Dawkins or Dawkin.

Your take on what I said above by the way is based on thinking I hate religion. Perhaps if you read what I put rather than what you like to think I put you may not make such absurd conclusions.

For that matter I have never promoted atheism. I don't know what it means for starters. If I promote anything it would be informed choice before jumping in bed with any club, society or cult. If something needs brainwashing of children or preying on vulnerable adults in order to boost membership rather than laying out the benefits of membership to informed adults then it really needs to have a good think about relevance.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 06:38 AM

Dawkins used to be a biologist who wrote some popular-scientific books about evolution theory, which I read. His ideas were generally well received among his fellow biologists, though not found explaining as much as sometimes claimed.

Starting with "The God Delusion", he switched to becoming an activist. He does not claim any scientific knowledge about his new subject (philosophy, sociology, and psychology of religions), and indeed deliberately boasts the opposite - see his famous "leprechaun" comparison. He is proud to fight religion, in other words, he is a militant atheist. Whenever he criticizes aspects of particular religions (which alone would make him merely a critic of religions), he describes them as consequences of religious faith.

The following is important and not known to everybody: his original starting point was a speculation about the biological evolution of religious predispositions in humans. It sounded somewhat plausible (though not to scientists who are long past this sort of "Darwinisms"), and led him to his new ideas that religion is no longer favorable to the survival of mankind, on the contrary. "Like the dinosaurs" - as another popular biologistic superstition says.

In the light of evolution theory, his present efforts can well be compared to cutting the tails of mice.

I wrote a similar post, but shorter, to a Mudcat thread last year, and found that some replies defended Dawkins in the style of some Muslims defending Muhammad - "sainthood" indeed.

I do not want to be part of ideological disputes, but I would like to emphasize that they must not be confused with science, even when led by (former) scientists. The great successes of science have brought about an aura (now somewhat crumbling, but still considerable) which attracts all kinds of superstition, with or without traditional attributes of religion. "Scientology" is the ultimate such label.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,concerend
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 06:46 AM

Is that dawkins related to Jack Dawkins the Artful dodger?..

Point is does it really matter.While you pseudo academics are scratching yourselves with one hand and thumb up bum with 'tother..the world is in a state of chaos..Do you clowns really think the skinny jean, blackberry fondling youth of today are interested in this crap.

Why don't you turn what passes for your collective brains and come up with solutions to help the unemployed, stop the attack on our health service, housing crisis, job cuts..these are the real issues not dork fodder that you lot discuss in your cosy little world.

Do something!!! or crayons are on way

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 07:37 AM

But concerned, surely nobody gives a tuppenny toss about housing crisis, jobs, health or other proletariat issues.

But we will happily debate whether you are male or female or whether that affects your habit of wearing bras and stockings.

Grishka gets my understatement of the last 10 mins award for referring to The Emeritus Professor of Evolutionary Biology at Oxford as a bloke who used to write a few books about biology.

His conclusions and theories were derided by many on the basis of they contradicted religious Scripture. I would be a bit Pissed off too if influential people dismissed scientific research by comparing it to fantasy and fiction. Whether it would make me a crusader such as he became is another kettle of fish though.

Unlike one contributor here, I don't seize on views of others and say their views purely reflect a following of Dawkins.

Rather funny really.

Here, my dog doesn't attend a church. Is he an atheist? Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Militant atheism has become a religion p
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 09:09 AM

Just "The Emeritus", Musket? Why not "THe EMeritus" (reflecting traditional spellings like "THe LOrd" etc.)?

Evolutionary biology is what it is; its relationship with metaphysics has not been changed at all by Dawkins' work in that field. A lot of the theory amounts to probabilistic mathematics - controversial only for internal reasons.

The Scripture people oppose that science altogether. Dawkins made a good target for them because he was prominent, and because they could instrumentalize that internal criticism, of course without understanding anything of it.

The important phase, however, was when Dawkins, flattered by the success of his popular books, strayed to areas of "Social/Sociological Darwinism", which is an ideology not backed by science at all. (In fact some of its claims would in principle be accessible to scientific methods, but only few have been treated successfully hitherto - and certainly not by Dawkins, who is proud not to be a sociologist.)

Summary: beware of ideologists, whether or not they claim science and/or "common sense" and/or divine inspiration and/or tradition.

And yes, "concerned", it has a lot to do with politics, both in theory and in practice.