Monday, June 6, 2016

On Militant Atheism


What does it mean to be militant atheist?  This is the adjective that is increasingly in vogue among Christians these days when applied to vocal atheists.  The word is defined in Merriam Webster as "having or showing a desire or willingness to use strong, extreme, and sometimes forceful methods to achieve something".  So the term "militant atheism" seems to imply the use some kind of undue coercive measures to remove religion from society against the will of believers.  It is therefore pejorative.  A distinction is drawn between the ordinary atheist, who is tolerated, and the militant atheist, who is seen as a plague upon society.  The ordinary atheist remains meek and silent, and poses no threat.  If he speaks up at all, it is only with deferential respect.  The militant atheist, on the other hand, says what he thinks, and in so doing, threatens to ruin everything for the believer.  And what is his method of forcing his odious beliefs upon the rest of the world?  Free speech.

That's right.  There are no jack-booted thugs carting Christians away in the middle of the night, no guns, no violence, no threats.  There are no laws being enacted against religious belief.  No barriers being erected to discourage worship in any homes or religious institutions.  But more than ever before, there are atheists who speak up.  They use words, and nothing more.  Never was there a more potent weapon to bring about societal change.  And this is what strikes fear into the hearts of the religious.  This is what has earned many the title of "militant atheist".  It's a title that is often used interchangeably with "new atheist", but it seems to place greater emphasis on the supposed forcefulness of the atheist movement.

But when it comes to actual militancy, you just don't find that among atheists in modern western society.  Sure, there was the League of Militant Atheists that existed for about two decades in Soviet Russia.  But their agenda was to promote the state's Communist ideology.  They were anti-religious only because the communist regime needed to eliminate ideological competition.  This was not done for the sake of atheism itself.  It was purely political.  Nevertheless, many Christians today insist on equating atheism in modern democratic countries with the worst elements of the communist totalitarian regimes.  This only shows that Christians will lie to promote a distorted view of atheism.

Do atheists actively promote atheism the way Christians promote Christianity?  Of course some of them do.  Yes, they see religion as being harmful to society.  They see it as being antithetical to scientific understanding.  Or they simply want to convince others of what they see as the truth.  This is just human nature.  Christians have been doing this for two millennia.  What is the difference between atheists and Christians who argue passionately for what they believe?  The atheist is called "militant", and the Christian is called "evangelist".  But when it comes to using forceful tactics or even violence to push their beliefs on others, or to silence the voice those who don't share their beliefs, I think there's no question that genuinely militant religious believers take the prize for that.

https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/55708-47021.jpg?w=519&h=367

But what about all that mocking and ridiculing that atheists engage in?  Yes, sometimes we're guilty of that.  So what?  Does that constitute militancy?  It's called free speech, and Christians do it with a zeal unlike anything I have ever heard from atheists.  They mock, ridicule, deride, and freely express their contempt for atheists.  There's nothing wrong with that unless you use a double standard to condemn atheists without condemning even worse behavior on the part of Christians.  We don't call these Christians militants.  Free speech is not coercive.  I don't often see atheists whining and crying about being mocked, but thin-skinned Christians seem to be very upset about it.  And this appears to be the worst charge they can legitimately level against atheists they describe as "militant": Those mean militant atheists.  They mock us and hurt our feelings.  Oh, the horror.

The fact is that the idea of militant atheism in today's democratic society is just a myth.  British writer Nick Cohen, who doesn't hold back on his criticism of liberals, describes the issue clearly in this fine opinion piece in The Guardian.  He concludes:
Since 9/11, western intellectuals have had a choice. They could have taken on militant religion, exposed its texts, decried its doctrines and found arguments to persuade young British men not to go to Syria and slaughter "heretics". But religious fanatics might have retaliated. Instead, they chose the safe option of attacking the phantom menace of militant atheists, who would never harm them. Leaving all philosophical and moral objections aside, they have been the most awful cowards
Well said.

23 comments:

  1. just says what bethink like D=Stupid Donald. like Stupid
    Donald saying what he thinks means saying they bigoted things the supporters are afraid to say.


    atheist calls for eradication of faith

    Al Stefani cslls for "eradication" of fundies eradication his phrase

    Boghosian calls for perdecution of Church

    atheists useridicule to intimidate beleiovers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is moronic. There in not a hint of coercion, or violence, or anything like the tactics that have been employed by Christians to enforce their faith on the unwilling. Nothing but words. And this is what you're up in arms about.

      Delete
    2. {{Al Stefani cslls for "eradication" of fundies }}


      No, you lying sack, he calls for eradication of fundies who want to kill atheists.
      Here it is in context"

      "But the underbelly of fundamentalist Christianity and radical Islam does not operate in the legal system. They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated. As long as they are allowed to exist, we will continue to be inundated with accounts of buses, buildings, markets and abortion clinics being blown up, rape victims being murdered for adultery, wives being beaten (sometimes to death), airplanes being flown into buildings, people being tortured and sometimes beheaded for blasphemy, people being burned for witchcraft and sorcery and all the other horrific, inhumane and insane practices that are part of fundamental Christianity and Radical Islam.

      If we don’t take a stand and, as a society, insist that these doctrines and beliefs are treated just the same as they would be if religion were not part of the equation, we will become extinct not due to natural selection, but at the hands of those who believe that the supernatural has made the selection."

      Quit lying.

      Delete
    3. {{Boghosian calls for perdecution of Church}}

      {“we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.”}

      "That's pretty chilling. People are advocating banning the teaching of religion from children, that's a major quashing of civil liberties."

      Exactly backwards, fool.
      The civil liberties of the child include the right to choose their religion when they reach the age of reason and certainly include, along with every other human being, the right not to be brainwashed.


      "I don't think we would have much trouble linking that to hate speech."

      Yea, you would. It's common sense.
      You either believe children are actual people or you don't.

      Delete
    4. {{atheists useridicule to intimidate beleiovers}}

      And the religious use ridicule to intimidate non-believers.


      "Mocking and ridicule are acts of hate."

      Not always.
      And they are sometimes the only defense against bad ideas propagated by fanatics.

      "To mock ideas is to stifle thinking. "

      Nope.
      It can stifle speech but the antidote is to speak back-not to stop the ridicule of ideas which are ridiculous.

      "It's true that some ideas worthy of ridicule, the problem is that accepting such a standard replaces thinking in the minds of those who don't like to think. "

      Sometimes. Not always.

      "Thus all one need do is ridicule and idea and the groupies accept the mocking as judgment that the idea is no good, one need to think about the idea. "


      Group think is always a bad thing.
      Religion is the prime example of group think and has employed and still employs mockery as a tool to prevent the questioning of doctrine.

      "Stupid people and ignorant people always mock things they don't understand."

      But of course, you would never do such a thing, eh, Joe?

      "When mocking and ridicule replace real thought in a community then the mere presence of ridicule is enough to stifle thought on the subject."

      Where has there ever been such a community?
      And are you seriously suggesting there is no real thought among atheists?

      "thus ridicule takes on a hateful aspect, it is the work of the lynch mob. Mocking and ridicule are nothing ore than mob rule."

      Sorry-you are simply wrong.
      If an idea can't withstand ridicule and mockery it isn't a very good idea.

      Delete
  2. so what?: if we do it to ya whine about it. o those mean w]cwistians got tied and started fighting back wa wa wa

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. there are some atheists I respect as thinkers, but for the most part they are pretty stupid. They tend to be very anti-intellectual but they don't have any idea what that term means. so they will disparage literature, art and philosophy as non scientific and that makes them intellectual their own estimation. In reality art, literature, and philosophy is what makes one an intellectual not science.

    they usually nothing about theology. so many times atheists will call me fundie or assume I'm a creationist. one the other day called me a Biblical literalist that is so totally stupid when I talk about Paul Tillich so much

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't be so vocal about stupidity if I were you.

      Delete
    2. "... so many times atheists will call me fundie or assume I'm a creationist. one the other day called me a Biblical literalist that is so totally stupid when I talk about Paul Tillich so much..."

      Again, fool, do you or do you not believe the Synoptic gospels are the story of an actual "god-man"?

      Tillich's "necessary being" is merely a philosopher's "god" intended to allow the faithful to go on believing in the same old same old yahweh.

      You can't have it both ways.

      Delete
    3. BTW, Atheist Watch is an embarrassment.
      I have rarely seen such blatant straw manning of opponents positions.

      Delete
  5. {{atheist calls for eradication of faith}}

    "...When did we try to make atheists sit at the back of the bus? "

    More of your PhD level "scholarship", Joe?

    http://americanhumanist.org/hnn/details/2012-05-unelectable-atheists-us-states-that-prohibit-godless

    {".....Annville, Pennsylvania, where atheist veterans marching in the Memorial Day parade were jeered, booed, insulted, cursed at, yelled at to leave, and told they were going to burn in hell. Not once or twice by a couple of fanatics… but repeatedly, throughout the course of the parade.

    Let me spell that one out again. In small town America, veterans — veterans, on Memorial Day, marching in a Memorial Day parade — were jeered, booed, insulted, cursed at, yelled at to leave, and told they were going to burn in hell....}

    "We never passed Jim Crow laws to keep atheists in the role of second class citizens."

    Aside from preventing atheist parents from taking custody of children?

    http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf

    And forcing the words "under god" into a pledge that defines citizenship?

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/19/nation/la-na-alabama-governor-20110119

    "We never lynched atheists..."

    http://irregulartimes.com/2014/08/12/alabama-christians-call-for-stoning-lynching-and-shooting-of-atheists/

    Only because you can't get away with it any longer.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/02/23/member-of-atheists-of-florida-arrested-for-disrupting-school-boards-prayer/

    {"...{Jessica) according to the Providence Journal, Ahlquist and another student were removed from their regular classroom schedule last month — after some students said they intended to harm her...."}

    You're kidding yourself, Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. look im you have a lot of potential. you are not stupid but your friends are. you have a lot of potential but limiting your self by nursing your hatred and not being willing to look beyond the hate that makes you feel good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "look im you have a lot of potential."

      Who the fuck are you to judge me? You're an idiot.
      Condescend to someone else.

      "you are not stupid but your friends are."

      LOL
      How did my friends, of whom you know nothing, even enter this conversation?

      "you have a lot of potential but limiting your self by nursing your hatred and not being willing to look beyond the hate that makes you feel good."

      How would you know any of that, fool?
      You have a degree in psychiatry?

      It's kind of ridiculous for you to level a charge of hatred against anyone else when your hatred of atheists is so palpable in everything you write.

      Delete
    2. I presume Joe was talking to me. If I'm wrong, sorry.

      I have to say that I think the comment about nursing my hatred is way off base. There are very few people I hate, and nobody that I would use any kind of aggressive force against.

      The central theme of my blog is to call out bullshit where I see it. It is true that much of my efforts have directed against religious bullshit, but I do not restrict myself to that alone. None of this is driven by hatred. Still, it is easy for one to get emotional over topics that are near and dear to the participants. I hope that we can all discuss these things calmly.

      As for my willingness to look beyond my own perspective, again you are dead wrong. That's precisely why I got involved in these discussions in the first place. I wanted to see what theists had to offer in the way of intellectual support for their beliefs. That was before I ever read any Dawkins or Coyne. It was before I ever heard the term "new atheist" or "militant atheist". You know what I found? A whole lot of nothing. People put tremendous effort into trying to rationalize their beliefs. That's what philosophy of religion is all about. That's what apologetics is all about. It's all bullshit.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, I'm.
      Re-reading I think you are right.

      Thanks for what you do. I enjoy your site.

      Delete
  7. Merrill I could go show you a hundred atheists who are good people that would not change the evil being done by bughossian and people like that. the little movement you are in that helps you nurse our hatred is limiting you as a person.

    consider the reality there sre atheists I admire why? because they are not myoopic bigoted hating asssholes like you.

    you said I'm literalist. knowing nothing about me. On my website I have a section about mythology in the Bible. I have essays on my site. I don't believe in inerrancy. I don't believe in hell I believe in evolution. when I decided to defend evolution on CARM where I used to post several of the regular defenders of evolu8tion asked me to help them and said I was better at defending it than they were.tye regular

    It never occurred to you to e en consider that I might not be a fundie if you are even are aware that some Christians aren't. Because you would rather nurse your hatred than learn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. "I could go show you a hundred atheists who are good people that would not change the evil being done by bughossian and people like that."

      You haven't demonstrated that Boghossian has done any evil at all.

      "the little movement you are in that helps you nurse our hatred is limiting you as a person."

      Oh, bullshit.
      While your hatred of atheists that forces you to spend most of your waking hours lying about them is completely benign?
      Get real, son.

      "consider the reality there sre atheists I admire why?"

      Dude, you're indulging in the equivalent of racists saying "some of my best friends are black".

      Cut the shit. I'm not interested.


      "because they are not myoopic bigoted hating asssholes like you."

      Boo hoo.
      Says the clown who lied about prominent atheists by equivocating on the eradication of ideas and the eradication of people who hold ideas?
      That makes you an OCD asshole, asshole.

      "you said I'm literalist. knowing nothing about me."

      Again, simple yes or no question, is the NT the literal story of a "god-man" or is it not?
      If yes you are at least in part a literalist.
      I'm bored with your denials.


      "On my website I have a section about mythology in the Bible."

      Not interested.

      " I have essays on my site."

      Good for you.

      " I don't believe in inerrancy."

      It's not an either or question.
      You've defended the accuracy of the NT.
      That makes you an NT inerrantist.

      "I don't believe in hell"

      So?

      " I believe in evolution."

      So?

      "when I decided to defend evolution on CARM where I used to post several of the regular defenders of evolu8tion asked me to help them and said I was better at defending it than they were.tye regular"

      And so modest-never an arrogant braggart.
      LOL

      "It never occurred to you to e en consider that I might not be a fundie if you are even are aware that some Christians aren't."

      I never viewed that question as an either/or.
      One can be a fundamentalist in regards to the NT, for instance, and reject trinitarianism as Newton did.

      "Because you would rather nurse your hatred than learn."

      Hahahahahahahaha.....
      you don't have any conception of what "learning" is, fool.
      You seem to think it means collecting opinions of theologians whose opinions agree with your own.

      Too funny.

      Glad to see you've calmed down a bit. I worry about your blood pressure.

      Delete
  8. An article published in Psychologytoday outlines the nonsense of 'militant atheism' so endeared by the religiose. It is as much a fantasy matched only by the fantasy of the theists godly supernatural superstition.

    Despite the religionists most valiant efforts, there is no going back to supernatural superstition as an explanatory model about us, the world, the universe. Renowned American philosopher George Santayana noted: "Faith in the supernatural is a desperate wager made by man at the lowest ebb of his fortunes."

    The bleating call of 'militant atheism' by today's religionists is symptomatic of the great changes that are being experienced by the community as we transit to a post-Christian society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting that this article appears in Psychology Today. It's indicative of religionists' approach brainwashing their fellow believers as a defensive mechanism to ward off the influence of ideas from outside the fold. Repeat the lie often enough, and even the liar will eventually come to believe it. By demonizing atheists, they insulate themselves from the prospect of taking seriously anything an atheist might have to say.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the link, Papa L.

      Delete