- 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)
Freedom From Atheism Foundation
- Freedom From Atheism Foundation (FFAF)! Their website
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Freedom From Religion? How About Freedom From Atheism? This is an article from Christian Post about the FFAF.
- 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
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)
Advertisement of religion?
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: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs
I have a lot of time for soft atheism, which is as atheists often tell us, nothing more than a lack of belief. But you can't swing between saying it's just a lack of belief, and then (as the article puts it) "daring to profess your own views against religion or against religious influence in public life or government ruling". Shouldn't that be daring to profess your own LACK of certain views?
Professing your own views is fine, criticising religion is fine, heck even organising your own 'First Church of Atheism' and lecturing about your beliefs on a Sunday is fine... but then you can't retreat and say it's nothing more than a nice passive lack of belief whenever you're feeling threatened by the burden of proof.
And before you get your knickers in a twist, I say all this as an unbeliever. But I'm not afraid to call out militant belief-sets when I see them, and I can recognise that those attitudes occur across the entire spectrum of human beliefs. If you can't see that these people exist within your own belief set too, chances are you're one of them. #Justsaying. Star Gazer (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)