"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.