Talk:Militant atheism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 19 May 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Wondering

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.

^pathetic 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. ^narchist 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

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? GodotRIP 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. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks 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. ;-)GodotRIP 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  10:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Pffft ^moral 14:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Double standards

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. GodotRIP 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. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous 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

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)