Talk:Militant atheism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Icon atheism.svg

This Atheism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

I think it's of mid importance, as far as I know it hasn't been rated. Please ammend if appropriate. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Wondering[edit]

Just wondering if this term is best off:

  1. Redirected to antitheism (as it is)
  2. Redirected to New Atheism
  3. Made into an article.

Scarlet A.pngpathetic 22:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to make a separate article focusing on the neologism. Add this with it too. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, there's secret option no.4 that says to put it under a more explicit sub-section of the two mentioned above. It depends how much you can milk out of "yeah, like atheists go around with AK-47s". There's also this one which brings up an interesting, albeit trollish, point. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 22:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Even more interesting is that those same Communist dictators abolished religion for the sake of creating their own personality cult. :P Osaka Sun (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What is a militant atheist[edit]

We aren't really addressing here, the activities that miltant (vs., generic) athiests are on about. Granted, some christians lump anyone who says "there is no god" publically, into the category "militant", but the term is more aggressively applied to people who say things like "Jane Goodall is (yes, this word was used) STUPID for thinking there is a god", or making idiotic claims like "the world would see few if any wars without religion", "the world would be necessarily better without religion". It is not as simple as a statement of belief, but a literal attack on those who do believe. I'm not sure how we address that. 2 sections in teh article? Green mowse.pngGodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 18:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second here. People like Enver Hoxha, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, etc, etc. were bloody in there attempts to enforce Atheism in their empires. --Revolverman (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Godot, what you're describing sounds like antitheism. While there's obviously a big overlap, militant atheism is defined in terms of action, advocacy, organisation, etc. rather than just what opinions people hold about religion.
Revolverman, those leaders enforced atheism as part of a larger ideology & attempted to replace religion with devotion to the regime. They don' even remotely fall into the category of people like PZ Myers & Richard Dawkins, who are focus of this article. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. that's why i didn't add anything. Not my field, for all i am one. ;-)Green mowse.pngGodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 19:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the term "militant atheist" should be reserved for those atheists who advocate physical violence against religious people and institutions, such as blowing up churches and executing clerics - e.g. many atheists in various historical communist parties; many atheists on the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War; many atheists during the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. Those are the true militant atheists. To call Dawkins or Hitchens militant is to stretch the term so far as to give it no meaning. I'd support amending this article accordingly. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 10:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Pffft Scarlet A.pngmoralModerator 14:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Double standards[edit]

There are several reasons why I feel the comments below shouldn’t influence this article or the article on antitheism.

  1. "Jane Goodall is (yes, this word was used) STUPID for thinking there is a god",
  2. "The world would see few if any wars without religion",
  3. "The world would be necessarily better without religion".

The reasons:-

  1. We have no links and the claims are anecdotal. Why in the name of the Most Holy IPU & FSM do critics of atheism have more freedom to use unsourced material than the critics of religion do?
  2. We have no context for the quote about Jane Goodall and can’t evaluate it, assuming it happened.
    1. Was it in a forum used mostly by under 18’s for example?
    2. Was the quote from an atheist or from a believer trying to make atheists look bad?
    3. Did the person making the quote accept that Goodall is intelligent overall and merely claim that her religious beliefs are ‘stupid’?
  3. Similar problems exist over the other statements which aren’t quotes.
  4. The Goodall quote and the other quotes aren’t representative of militant atheists generally or of athitheists generally. All 3 look like what I would expect on websites for under 18’s.
    1. If I were to generalise from Conservapedia to the whole of Christianity the wiki would be down on me and rightly so.
    2. If I even generalised from Conservapedia to the whole of the Religious Right in America Godot and a few others would be strongly critical and with good reason.
  5. Why in the name of the Most Holy IPU & FSM does Godot have more freedom to use unsourced criticisms than I do?

This whole issue illustrates the double standard mentioned in the article. I’ve written more about this double standard in an article about New atheism and at least on secular websites this double standard should stop. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear idiot who cannot read. "Thanks, that's why i avoided making any changes to this article, since it's not a topic i know about". No wonder you have such a hard time editing, you do not have any sense of what you've read. Green mowse.pngGodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 18:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your insulting language doesn't address my arguments. You used unsourced quotes that aren't representative of any type of atheists (except perhaps immature teenage atheists) and wanted us to base part of the article on that type of material. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You’ve shown your talent for insulting but haven’t addressed the double standard.

  1. In the Monasticism article I used a good source and you told everyone the source was bad without checking, alternatively you assumed no one else would check, see Nun abuse.
  2. In mainspace you regularly add unsourced material written in impressive academic language and expect us to accept what you write on your authority alone.
  3. You haven’t demonstrated that you are a reliable authority, please in future source your edits as carefully as you want me to source mine.

Oh, and check the sources other editors use before condemning sources you personally dislike.

Here you recognised that, “one guy's story does not a fact make.” Please stop having one standard for critics of religion and another less stringent standard for critics of atheism. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought this page was discussing an informal term , the commonly perceived thought that atheists who criticize religion ARE OUT TO DESTROY ALL SPIRITUAL PEEPLE KNOW AND LOVE!!1one! Not calling such people as Dawkins actually millitant, but discussing how others see such figures (and those who support their ideas) as a threat. I know my own tiny-arse SSA has been called threatening and millitant by the local bible clubs (whoah, slipping flyers under dormitory doors; SO THREATENING!) and we're the sort that's organizing free hugs campaigns and stuff. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 11:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Jane Goodall's God according to Wikipedia but then according to another website she's a Christian. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Wikipedia - a referenced source quoting - albeit indirectly - Jane herself. Wiki Answers - no references, no explanation - two "contributors" neither of which seem to have any expertise in the subject. Now, which one is the preferred source. Difficult decision there. Hmm... Bad Faith (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Atheists say the darnedest things[edit]

  1. "Jane Goodall is (yes, this word was used) STUPID for thinking there is a god",
  2. "The world would see few if any wars without religion",
  3. "The world would be necessarily better without religion".

I've had time to think things over and I've decided the quotes above should be in the article Atheists say the darnedest things. That is if anybody actually said them and if the context doesn't show they're less silly than they look. We need to warn atheists against using or trusting bad arguments and those 3 would help in that endeavour. If anybody said any of the 3 cited above please give links so I can include them. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

9/11[edit]

How has 9/11 affected atheism and religion in the USA? Americans please tell us? Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please describe the train of thought leading to you posting your question on this particular talk page?--ZooGuard (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, forget it, I just saw the reference in the article lead.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
A lot of people have said that 9/11 sent religion haywire, since it was the Glorious West's first really serious brush with terrorism derived from religious zealotry. Certainly your usual "militant" atheist types aren't above using it for their own ends. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 11:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom From Atheism Foundation[edit]

The bulk of their homepage has material describing and condemning atheist persecution of Christians in Communist countries. I don't know enough history to know if all the claimed persecution happened but I know in general terms that Marxists treated people with a wide range of religious faiths very badly. How is this relevant to the campaigns of non Marxist militant atheists like, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett? The FFAF homepage claims, "Dawkins has attempted to justify the atrocities committed in the name of atheism". I read through their source twice, it's Dawkins and the Abuse of History. I haven't found any suggestion there that Dawkins tries to justify Stalinist or Nazi persecution of believers. It looks like we can't rely on the FFAF to be truthful.

I'm trying to work out what the FFAF message is.

  1. It seems the FFAF claims reprehensible behavior and alleged (unproved) reprehensible behavior by some atheists is sufficient reason why all atheists should be ashamed to promote their beliefs.
  2. At the same time reprehensible behavior by, for example the Westboro Baptist Church done in the name of Christianity or burning crosses by the KKK doesn't stop the FFAF promoting Christianity. They have an Apologetics section, they link to a website offering free legal help to people in trouble for witnessing at work. At work you can't easily get away from a colleague/co-worker who insistently preaches at you.

It looks like the typical double standard, Atheists should shut up while believers carry on proselytizing. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This group has been round since 2012 and is growing, they merit research. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that their apologetics page links to Conservapedia as a source on various occasions. So I rather doubt that we are dealing with intellectual giants here.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Tribalism in the Atheist Movement[edit]

There's too much of it. Many people are complaining about it and believe it's harming the movement. Relevant articles below.

I don't know what you're talking about. Avicenna was determined to be a plagiarist and thus removed. And? What does something that happened a year ago have to do with anything? --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't explain better when I just posted the link and left others to read it. Someone was caught plagiarising, after that according to the web page cited factionalism broke out with some people complaining that plagiarism had been exposed.

First, for those saying Hemant is a bad guy or doing the general tactic of trying to smear somebody who has disagreed with or criticized FtB, stop it. If Hemant had revealed that somebody you didn’t like was a serial plagiarist you’d be jumping for joy. (...) Regardless of what you think of the Slymepit, they did a good thing here. It’s time to admit that. (...) If you want to know why the other side doesn’t always listen to you, it’s not because they’re all evil, close-minded haters. No, it’s because so many of you have so frequently cried wolf to try and get the upper hand over the other as if the moral high ground can’t possibly be shared. (...) so many people are so damn preoccupied with attacking each other. Regardless of who threw the first punch, this is how it is now. People are losing their fire for activism because of this. People are walking away from the atheist movement because so much of what gets said goes beyond fighting for what’s right – it’s become about winning over the other side and demonizing those who aren’t ideologically pure in a perpetual explosion of petty drama. This is not a good thing for the cause of social justice or atheism. (My thoughts on Avicenna’s plagiarism and the reaction of commenters everywhere.)

It's the reaction to the plagiarism that concerns me and I've quoted extensively from the article to show. Please read the whole article in context. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Where do you live that you can't go anywhere without seeing an "advertisement or promotion of religion every few minutes"? Certainly not where I live, unless you count being forced to see a church as you drive past as "advertisement". That said, in my mind, when someone says "militant atheist", I immediately think of Internet assholes who immediately jump on anyone who says something like "they'll be in our prayers" or "God bless you" and immediately heap harassment and scorn on them for their ignorance and stupidity for believing in such fairytales, people who can't just let it go and ignore it since it's none of their business. Of course, there are evangelical's who will jump at any chance to convince you that there IS a God, but if you look at it rationally, since they believe they are required to do this, they must, while if you're an atheist, it doesn't, or shouldn't, matter to you one way or another, because there is no God. If you believe in God, a claim that he doesn't exist should necessarily upset you; if you're an atheist, claims that he does exist shouldn't bother you at all; what does it matter to you if someone else believes in a fictional being? Militant atheism is going out of your way to prove religious people are wrong, even when there are no good reasons too. For example, "being forced to pray"...if you don't believe in God, then what exact harm is being done by praying? You are repeating meaningless phrases. What does it matter if it says "In God We Trust" on a bill? It's just words. It smacks of simple pride and wanting to make others conform to your ideas. Do religious people often do this. Sure, but an atheist ought to know better, unless there are actual tangible effects to what he/she is protesting against. — Unsigned, by: 64.223.108.122 / talk / contribs