Where are the real militant atheists?
August 9, 2008 10:18 PM Subscribe
Are there any true "militant atheism" organizations or "preachers" out there? I mean real extremist atheism? Like "Death to all believers" type extreme? If not, why not?
I was just watching the CNN special on "god's warriors", which got me thinking about the relationship between belief and violence. Then I read the wikipedia on atheism which mentions that often the term "militant" is attached to atheism when that is not really an accurate qualifier. They are using militant as a pejorative when what they are really saying is "committed atheist" or "firm atheist", not someone who dresses up in fatigues and commits acts of terrorism, or advocates blowing up buildings they don't agree with (ala Islamic terrorists and Christian abortion bombers).
Judaism, Marxism, heck even Hindus and Buddhists have their fringe sects of fundamentalists and extremists who advocate violence.
So ARE there any actual atheist groups that advocate or commit serious criminal activity? if there are, why don't they get more press since every other religious faction already hates atheists and looks for any excuse to show how being godless is evil?
If not, why not? you'd think that atheists would be the most extreme, after all religious zealots just believe they are right, while atheists know they are right based on all logic, evidence and fact... not to mention that persecution usually breads an overly paranoid and defensive mentality, and no group has been more systematically persecuted by ALL religions through history than atheists/infidels/heretics/nonbelievers/freethinkers etc.
(full disclosure, I loosely consider myself Buddhist)
I was just watching the CNN special on "god's warriors", which got me thinking about the relationship between belief and violence. Then I read the wikipedia on atheism which mentions that often the term "militant" is attached to atheism when that is not really an accurate qualifier. They are using militant as a pejorative when what they are really saying is "committed atheist" or "firm atheist", not someone who dresses up in fatigues and commits acts of terrorism, or advocates blowing up buildings they don't agree with (ala Islamic terrorists and Christian abortion bombers).
Judaism, Marxism, heck even Hindus and Buddhists have their fringe sects of fundamentalists and extremists who advocate violence.
So ARE there any actual atheist groups that advocate or commit serious criminal activity? if there are, why don't they get more press since every other religious faction already hates atheists and looks for any excuse to show how being godless is evil?
If not, why not? you'd think that atheists would be the most extreme, after all religious zealots just believe they are right, while atheists know they are right based on all logic, evidence and fact... not to mention that persecution usually breads an overly paranoid and defensive mentality, and no group has been more systematically persecuted by ALL religions through history than atheists/infidels/heretics/nonbelievers/freethinkers etc.
(full disclosure, I loosely consider myself Buddhist)
You could make the argument that any nation's Communist party is such an organization, or at least approaches that level.
posted by deadmessenger at 10:31 PM on August 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by deadmessenger at 10:31 PM on August 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
If not, why not? you'd think that atheists would be the most extreme
I don't follow you. Believers have to convert the evil non-believers because they think that scores them points with their God. They only reason they see to live is to get God to like them so they have a good afterlife. So it follows that they are going to be pretty passionate.
Atheists believe there is no God, so they don't need to waste our time concerning ourselves with what other people think... at least not to score points with The Almightly. When I die, some worms are going to eat my body and that's the end.
posted by jrockway at 10:33 PM on August 9, 2008 [10 favorites]
I don't follow you. Believers have to convert the evil non-believers because they think that scores them points with their God. They only reason they see to live is to get God to like them so they have a good afterlife. So it follows that they are going to be pretty passionate.
Atheists believe there is no God, so they don't need to waste our time concerning ourselves with what other people think... at least not to score points with The Almightly. When I die, some worms are going to eat my body and that's the end.
posted by jrockway at 10:33 PM on August 9, 2008 [10 favorites]
You could make the argument that any nation's Communist party is such an organization, or at least approaches that level.
Yeah, I think the USSR and China until the last 30 years or so would qualify as rather large organizations.
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:52 PM on August 9, 2008
Yeah, I think the USSR and China until the last 30 years or so would qualify as rather large organizations.
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:52 PM on August 9, 2008
...and Buddhists who advocate violence? WTF?
not to derail, but start by googling "Sri Lanka."
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:54 PM on August 9, 2008
not to derail, but start by googling "Sri Lanka."
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:54 PM on August 9, 2008
You could make the argument that any nation's Communist party is such an organization, or at least approaches that level.
I doubt very much that atheism as a belief system is what really motivates most Communists.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:04 PM on August 9, 2008 [7 favorites]
I doubt very much that atheism as a belief system is what really motivates most Communists.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:04 PM on August 9, 2008 [7 favorites]
If not, why not? you'd think that atheists would be the most extreme
yeah, I don't agree one hundred percent with your police work there.... look at it this way - when violence is religiously motivated -
1. it matters enormously to you what people *think* and *do* because
2. your influence upon others helps you go to heaven - forever!
3. you don't care so much what happens to *you* on earth (life in prison, or getting exploded by your suicide bomb), again, because...
4. you get to go to heaven - forever!
So why would you expect an atheist to be the most extreme?
posted by moxiedoll at 11:05 PM on August 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
yeah, I don't agree one hundred percent with your police work there.... look at it this way - when violence is religiously motivated -
1. it matters enormously to you what people *think* and *do* because
2. your influence upon others helps you go to heaven - forever!
3. you don't care so much what happens to *you* on earth (life in prison, or getting exploded by your suicide bomb), again, because...
4. you get to go to heaven - forever!
So why would you expect an atheist to be the most extreme?
posted by moxiedoll at 11:05 PM on August 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
Nietzsche's philosophy, which dwells on atheism's implications, has been radicalized by lots of movements. The Smithsonian magazine just ran a piece about a 1920s era murdering duo who were influenced by him.
posted by cowbellemoo at 11:16 PM on August 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by cowbellemoo at 11:16 PM on August 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
See the Wikipedia article Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution
posted by XMLicious at 11:21 PM on August 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by XMLicious at 11:21 PM on August 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
I doubt very much that atheism as a belief system is what really motivates most Communists.
The push for cultural homogeneity in communist regimes has indeed played out as religious persecution. It's true that motivation for these cultural purges are complex, but when religion itself is considered "counterrevolutionary" I think the link to atheism is meaningful.
posted by cowbellemoo at 11:39 PM on August 9, 2008
The push for cultural homogeneity in communist regimes has indeed played out as religious persecution. It's true that motivation for these cultural purges are complex, but when religion itself is considered "counterrevolutionary" I think the link to atheism is meaningful.
posted by cowbellemoo at 11:39 PM on August 9, 2008
and no group has been more systematically persecuted by ALL religions through history than atheists/infidels/heretics/nonbelievers/freethinkers etc.
Atheism isn't a group or 'belief system' any more than non-alchemism is, so there' nothing to get worked up or militant about.
posted by signal at 11:50 PM on August 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
Atheism isn't a group or 'belief system' any more than non-alchemism is, so there' nothing to get worked up or militant about.
posted by signal at 11:50 PM on August 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
For me, I don't fee any pressure to convert people to atheism. I guess I *know* what I believe is right but art of my "non-beliefs" include not caring what other people believe. At my most extreme I am annoyed by the religous when they try to convert me and in many ways I feel pity towards them but that it is. There is no benefit in trying to destroy other people beliefs, no "god" to reward my actions or punish my inactions.
posted by saradarlin at 12:12 AM on August 10, 2008
posted by saradarlin at 12:12 AM on August 10, 2008
If not, why not? you'd think that atheists would be the most extreme, after all [...] atheists know they are right based on all logic, evidence and fact
In general, we don't care much about atheist proselytism.
Might be a neat idea, though. "Kepler mit uns".
posted by _dario at 12:30 AM on August 10, 2008
In general, we don't care much about atheist proselytism.
Might be a neat idea, though. "Kepler mit uns".
posted by _dario at 12:30 AM on August 10, 2008
The push for cultural homogeneity in communist regimes has indeed played out as religious persecution. It's true that motivation for these cultural purges are complex, but when religion itself is considered "counterrevolutionary" I think the link to atheism is meaningful.
I don't think so - you're missing a basic point. Religion wasn't counterrevolutionary simply because it was religion (as such), it was counterrevolutionary because it was counterrevolutionary. Any ideology or belief system that was perceived as disruptive to what Communist leaders felt in need of protection was "counterrevolutionary." Trotskyism, Ukrainian nationalism, the Solidarnosc movement, followers of poetry and novels, "kulaks," "intellectuals," and so on. And yes, religion too.
I grew up in Yugoslavia, where Tito was, by any reasonable standard, treated as a God. I don't mean that figuratively either. People believed he could "heal," and they infused their image of him with powers of spirituality and strength and wisdom in much the same way that devout Catholics might do with the Virgin Mary.
We referred to him as our Father or Grandfather, pictures were everywhere, we sang loving songs about him - even religious people would thank "God and Tito" when something good happened or when something bad didn't happen. I was only five when he died, but I remember the fear and the wailing and the national mourning. I also remember thinking of him the way a small child would Santa Claus. And this wasn't from my vivid imagination, it was taught to all of us.
And still (!) our idolatrous perception of Tito wasn't half as strong (or half as encouraged) as the Romanians of Ceausescu, the Russians of Stalin, the Albanians of Hoxha, or the Chinese of Mao.
It's often said of Communism that the "state" was God. To some extent that's true, but it usually excludes the more relevant reality - the "state" was One Man. In the tradition of "L'État, c'est moi." This was especially true in times when religion was most imperiled.
Communist states were much less atheistic than they were "transferers" of religious status from God and church to figureheads such as Stalin. Whatever comfort or security or guidance that religion is believed to provide isn't any different from what Our Beloved Grandfather Tito was believed to provide to many of my former countrymen. It seems ludicrous now, of course, but it was still a religiously-driven kind of faith. And now that I think about it, the Gods of Olympus seem a little ludicrous now. Perhaps the only real difference between the "gods" of Communism and the "Gods" of the great religions is simply the warp of human perspective.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 12:35 AM on August 10, 2008 [22 favorites]
I don't think so - you're missing a basic point. Religion wasn't counterrevolutionary simply because it was religion (as such), it was counterrevolutionary because it was counterrevolutionary. Any ideology or belief system that was perceived as disruptive to what Communist leaders felt in need of protection was "counterrevolutionary." Trotskyism, Ukrainian nationalism, the Solidarnosc movement, followers of poetry and novels, "kulaks," "intellectuals," and so on. And yes, religion too.
I grew up in Yugoslavia, where Tito was, by any reasonable standard, treated as a God. I don't mean that figuratively either. People believed he could "heal," and they infused their image of him with powers of spirituality and strength and wisdom in much the same way that devout Catholics might do with the Virgin Mary.
We referred to him as our Father or Grandfather, pictures were everywhere, we sang loving songs about him - even religious people would thank "God and Tito" when something good happened or when something bad didn't happen. I was only five when he died, but I remember the fear and the wailing and the national mourning. I also remember thinking of him the way a small child would Santa Claus. And this wasn't from my vivid imagination, it was taught to all of us.
And still (!) our idolatrous perception of Tito wasn't half as strong (or half as encouraged) as the Romanians of Ceausescu, the Russians of Stalin, the Albanians of Hoxha, or the Chinese of Mao.
It's often said of Communism that the "state" was God. To some extent that's true, but it usually excludes the more relevant reality - the "state" was One Man. In the tradition of "L'État, c'est moi." This was especially true in times when religion was most imperiled.
Communist states were much less atheistic than they were "transferers" of religious status from God and church to figureheads such as Stalin. Whatever comfort or security or guidance that religion is believed to provide isn't any different from what Our Beloved Grandfather Tito was believed to provide to many of my former countrymen. It seems ludicrous now, of course, but it was still a religiously-driven kind of faith. And now that I think about it, the Gods of Olympus seem a little ludicrous now. Perhaps the only real difference between the "gods" of Communism and the "Gods" of the great religions is simply the warp of human perspective.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 12:35 AM on August 10, 2008 [22 favorites]
Well, you could say that science itself fits into this category, if somewhat obliquely. Atheism isn't a belief system in and of itself so much as it is a rejection of anything other than empirical evidence, and as such runs counter to creationism. In this way it can never truly be fundamentalist as the barriers are defined by the process of empiricism rather than a faith in something believed to be absolutely true. For empiricists the 'truths' are alway smoving and changing and it's only possible to be fundamentally attached to the method and not to what's currently believed to be true.
posted by jimmythefish at 12:43 AM on August 10, 2008
posted by jimmythefish at 12:43 AM on August 10, 2008
You could make the argument that any nation's Communist party is such an organization, or at least approaches that level.
Yeah, I think the USSR and China until the last 30 years or so would qualify as rather large organizations.
You could suggest that, but then people might giggle and laugh at you for getting your history from Reagan speeches. Communist China and the old Soviet Union have swung between persecution, tolerance, or support for/from religion at various times, generally according to what has been convenient.
If you want a more better example of a bunch of atheists persecuting religion you'd be best looking at the French Revolution.
posted by rodgerd at 1:13 AM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
You might be interested in Dawkins' "memetic" approach to the subject; it's in The Selfish Gene, probably among others. It explains clearly why religions are necessarily more 'militant' than atheism or agnosticism -- basically, as above, to survive they need to propagate between people, so a key element of their beliefs is often the requirement to spread the word.
posted by katrielalex at 2:08 AM on August 10, 2008
posted by katrielalex at 2:08 AM on August 10, 2008
You might be interested in Dawkins' "memetic" approach to the subject; it's in The Selfish Gene, probably among others. It explains clearly why religions are necessarily more 'militant' than atheism or agnosticism -- basically, as above, to survive they need to propagate between people, so a key element of their beliefs is often the requirement to spread the word.
While Dawkins uses evangelistic religions as an example of a meme, there's nothing that restricts the application of the idea to religion or prevents it from being used in the case of atheism. All it requires is that there are promised benefits to believers and/or detriments for non-believers (fitness bonuses and costs) and that the idea is spread, usually by believers evangelising them. In fact, Dawkins himself very directly fulfils the qualifications for religion as a meme: he blames religion for war and suffering, says that an atheist world would be better and writes books and does TV shows to spread that idea. By this criteria: atheism is a meme.
This also goes to show the intellectual paucity of memetics. It's an concept that can be applied to almost any idea. As Mary Midgeley quipped, is it useful to treat dance styles as memes? After all, they propagate, waxing and waning in popularity. And what does that tell us?
posted by outlier at 2:54 AM on August 10, 2008
While Dawkins uses evangelistic religions as an example of a meme, there's nothing that restricts the application of the idea to religion or prevents it from being used in the case of atheism. All it requires is that there are promised benefits to believers and/or detriments for non-believers (fitness bonuses and costs) and that the idea is spread, usually by believers evangelising them. In fact, Dawkins himself very directly fulfils the qualifications for religion as a meme: he blames religion for war and suffering, says that an atheist world would be better and writes books and does TV shows to spread that idea. By this criteria: atheism is a meme.
This also goes to show the intellectual paucity of memetics. It's an concept that can be applied to almost any idea. As Mary Midgeley quipped, is it useful to treat dance styles as memes? After all, they propagate, waxing and waning in popularity. And what does that tell us?
posted by outlier at 2:54 AM on August 10, 2008
my personal view on this is that any belief system that projects a utopia based on some or other doctrine that requires the conversion or elimination of non-believers is a religion. in this sense, communism is as much a religion as christianity. the details are really unimportant. what is important is the concept of an "other" or "enemy" and a promised land that can't be reached as long as the "other" exists. in the case of christianity, the promised land is in the next life. in communism, it's the current one.
you'll notice that any movement, from a US presidential campaign to the russian, french and american revolutions to jesus' (supposed) ministry, is composed of an intellectual core that understands what they're trying to achieve - and how to manipulate the masses into supporting it - and an uncomprehending mob of followers. in the case of the US presidential campaign you get the sense, particularly from obama supporters, that they're having a religious experience. it's not the policy specifics that are compelling, it's the promise of a better world and the impending defeat of the "other." in this case, republicans. in fact, i've heard it spoken many times that, "kucinich is right, but i believe in obama!"
as for how atheism fits together with communism, well, there's really no correlation. there are atheist capitalists (libertarians) and religious communists (kibbutzim). in the case of soviet and chinese communism, atheism was one among a set of doctrinal components that made up what amounted to a religion based on economics, class distinctions and the end of oppression - by man or god. in fact, one could say that the american and russian revolutions have much in common with regards to their goals of ending oppression by the church. the american founders are often described as "deists" with no strong ties to any religion, nor acknowledgement of the primacy of any church. this softness on religion has allowed them to escape being labelled as atheists, and modern politicos to ascribe to them whatever religious views they choose. russian communists, with their explicit declaration of atheism - though their ends were probably the same - have had no such luck.
so can atheism, on its own, be a religion by my definition? certainly. why not? but enough people would have to believe that religion is the primary cause of all suffering, and that the conversion of all religious people to atheism is the only solution. and they'd need a compelling leader. frankly, i just don't see that happening. there is a correlation between wealth, education and atheism that means there's simply not enough suffering atheists to create a movement for change. that could change one day, but not anytime soon.
i have to finish this off by saying that religious (or otherwise) views are probably always incorrectly assumed. the spectrum of beliefs held by powerful people is necessarily unknowable because they achieve prominence by tailoring a private persona for public consumption. i'm pretty certain that, whether atheist or otherwise, no political leader is quite as certain as they seem. it's the mob that does the dirty work.
posted by klanawa at 3:45 AM on August 10, 2008 [5 favorites]
you'll notice that any movement, from a US presidential campaign to the russian, french and american revolutions to jesus' (supposed) ministry, is composed of an intellectual core that understands what they're trying to achieve - and how to manipulate the masses into supporting it - and an uncomprehending mob of followers. in the case of the US presidential campaign you get the sense, particularly from obama supporters, that they're having a religious experience. it's not the policy specifics that are compelling, it's the promise of a better world and the impending defeat of the "other." in this case, republicans. in fact, i've heard it spoken many times that, "kucinich is right, but i believe in obama!"
as for how atheism fits together with communism, well, there's really no correlation. there are atheist capitalists (libertarians) and religious communists (kibbutzim). in the case of soviet and chinese communism, atheism was one among a set of doctrinal components that made up what amounted to a religion based on economics, class distinctions and the end of oppression - by man or god. in fact, one could say that the american and russian revolutions have much in common with regards to their goals of ending oppression by the church. the american founders are often described as "deists" with no strong ties to any religion, nor acknowledgement of the primacy of any church. this softness on religion has allowed them to escape being labelled as atheists, and modern politicos to ascribe to them whatever religious views they choose. russian communists, with their explicit declaration of atheism - though their ends were probably the same - have had no such luck.
so can atheism, on its own, be a religion by my definition? certainly. why not? but enough people would have to believe that religion is the primary cause of all suffering, and that the conversion of all religious people to atheism is the only solution. and they'd need a compelling leader. frankly, i just don't see that happening. there is a correlation between wealth, education and atheism that means there's simply not enough suffering atheists to create a movement for change. that could change one day, but not anytime soon.
i have to finish this off by saying that religious (or otherwise) views are probably always incorrectly assumed. the spectrum of beliefs held by powerful people is necessarily unknowable because they achieve prominence by tailoring a private persona for public consumption. i'm pretty certain that, whether atheist or otherwise, no political leader is quite as certain as they seem. it's the mob that does the dirty work.
posted by klanawa at 3:45 AM on August 10, 2008 [5 favorites]
...personally, I've always believed that belief is belief, and extremism is extremism -- and the two are separate. In other words -- take a religious wack-nut. For the sake of argument we'll make him Christian. Take him back to his birth, and switch the religion he's born in -- say we'll make him Shinto. I strongly believe that the only thing about him that would change is that he would grow up to be a SHINTO wack-nut instead of a Christian one -- he'd still be a wack-nut.
The fact that you can find extremists in every ideological area -- religion, politics, social issues, animal rights, hell, even sports and ice cream flavors -- tells me that there is something inherantly within the person him/herself that just is prone to extremism, and all that the subject of their extremism is is a framework to hang that upon. So effectively, the topic of their extremism doesn't really matter -- it's their attitude about it that is the issue.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:51 AM on August 10, 2008
The fact that you can find extremists in every ideological area -- religion, politics, social issues, animal rights, hell, even sports and ice cream flavors -- tells me that there is something inherantly within the person him/herself that just is prone to extremism, and all that the subject of their extremism is is a framework to hang that upon. So effectively, the topic of their extremism doesn't really matter -- it's their attitude about it that is the issue.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:51 AM on August 10, 2008
If you want a more better example of a bunch of atheists persecuting religion you'd be best looking at the French Revolution.
In the Estates-General the noble clergy was designated as the First Estate with a third of the votes. The Church owned 10-15% of the French lands and had the power to levy taxes. Their money, power, social standing and political affiliations couldn't be unaffected by a revolution.
posted by ersatz at 7:58 AM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
In the Estates-General the noble clergy was designated as the First Estate with a third of the votes. The Church owned 10-15% of the French lands and had the power to levy taxes. Their money, power, social standing and political affiliations couldn't be unaffected by a revolution.
posted by ersatz at 7:58 AM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
Insightful post, Dee Xtrovert!
The transference of faith from God to the State is an interesting angle which I haven't thought a lot about. I'm reminded passingly of Rousseau's civil religion, which in contemporary times could be a socio-biological recognition of people's *need* to believe in something, so why not the man made state rather than the supernatural?
Interesting angle. I suppose if you equate state secular religion with atheism then from there you can arrive at entire nations of "militant" atheists - generally though I believe that atheism is viewed (particular by its adherents here in the West) as a Luther-esq personal conversion or system, one that does not lend itself to group faith of any sort beyond the local atheist-book club or Dawkins appreciation society.
posted by wfrgms at 8:26 AM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
The transference of faith from God to the State is an interesting angle which I haven't thought a lot about. I'm reminded passingly of Rousseau's civil religion, which in contemporary times could be a socio-biological recognition of people's *need* to believe in something, so why not the man made state rather than the supernatural?
Interesting angle. I suppose if you equate state secular religion with atheism then from there you can arrive at entire nations of "militant" atheists - generally though I believe that atheism is viewed (particular by its adherents here in the West) as a Luther-esq personal conversion or system, one that does not lend itself to group faith of any sort beyond the local atheist-book club or Dawkins appreciation society.
posted by wfrgms at 8:26 AM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
Well, you could say that science itself fits into this category, if somewhat obliquely. Atheism isn't a belief system in and of itself so much as it is a rejection of anything other than empirical evidence
No, atheism is not believing in God. Some atheists are empricists, and some are vegetarians, but neither of those are necessary for atheism.
so can atheism, on its own, be a religion by my definition? certainly.
Sure, if you just invent a new definition for "religion," as you have.
posted by ludwig_van at 8:48 AM on August 10, 2008
No, atheism is not believing in God. Some atheists are empricists, and some are vegetarians, but neither of those are necessary for atheism.
so can atheism, on its own, be a religion by my definition? certainly.
Sure, if you just invent a new definition for "religion," as you have.
posted by ludwig_van at 8:48 AM on August 10, 2008
No, atheism is not believing in God. Some atheists are empricists, and some are vegetarians, but neither of those are necessary for atheism.
What he said, (except it's a disbelief in gods, in the same sense that I don't believe in "fairies", not in "Fairy", regardless of whether or not you're monofairistic). The reification of 'atheism' as some sort of dialectic opposite to christianity/catholicism/monotheism/whatever is misguided at best and disingenious at worst.
Atheism!=science/rationalism/empiricism/etc-ism. It's a lack of belief in gods, that's it. No philosophical baggage required.
posted by signal at 9:06 AM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
What he said, (except it's a disbelief in gods, in the same sense that I don't believe in "fairies", not in "Fairy", regardless of whether or not you're monofairistic). The reification of 'atheism' as some sort of dialectic opposite to christianity/catholicism/monotheism/whatever is misguided at best and disingenious at worst.
Atheism!=science/rationalism/empiricism/etc-ism. It's a lack of belief in gods, that's it. No philosophical baggage required.
posted by signal at 9:06 AM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
The OP said in part: ...and no group has been more systematically persecuted by ALL religions through history than atheists/infidels/heretics/nonbelievers/freethinkers etc.
This "group" is only a group the set of those persecuted by all religions. Note that each category you list is opposed to another, or excludes the other groups by definition:
atheists == Those who don't believe in what has no empirical evidence.
infidels == Those who don't believe in your religion.
heretics == Those who believe in your religion in the wrong way.
nonbelievers == Those who don't believe in your required myths.
freethinkers == Any of the above who annoy you.
And to expand on signal's point, there's nothing in atheism to be militant about: Nothing changes in it by one's faith or devotion. As someone once said a long, long time ago upon being put to death for pointing out observable facts, "Nevertheless, it still moves." ["E pur si muove"]
Militant atheism is like:
Non-alchemism (signal's example)
Anti-Flat Earther
Phlogiston Denier
...Belief in alchemy, a flat earth, and phlogiston does not make it so.
posted by lothar at 10:24 AM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
This "group" is only a group the set of those persecuted by all religions. Note that each category you list is opposed to another, or excludes the other groups by definition:
atheists == Those who don't believe in what has no empirical evidence.
infidels == Those who don't believe in your religion.
heretics == Those who believe in your religion in the wrong way.
nonbelievers == Those who don't believe in your required myths.
freethinkers == Any of the above who annoy you.
And to expand on signal's point, there's nothing in atheism to be militant about: Nothing changes in it by one's faith or devotion. As someone once said a long, long time ago upon being put to death for pointing out observable facts, "Nevertheless, it still moves." ["E pur si muove"]
Militant atheism is like:
Non-alchemism (signal's example)
Anti-Flat Earther
Phlogiston Denier
...Belief in alchemy, a flat earth, and phlogiston does not make it so.
posted by lothar at 10:24 AM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
after all religious zealots just believe they are right, while atheists know they are right
I would argue just the opposite, at least from the point of view of the people in question.
posted by Rykey at 1:05 PM on August 10, 2008
I would argue just the opposite, at least from the point of view of the people in question.
posted by Rykey at 1:05 PM on August 10, 2008
ludwig_van: i'm not that far off the mark.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
where i take liberty, perhaps, is with the idea of eliminationism. but religion isn't about what its practitioners say, it's about how they behave. there are few, in the mainstream at least - probably because not having an "other" or "enemy" simply doesn't generate the kind of buzz a good religion needs - that don't rely on a distinction between "us" and "them."
interestingly, atheism does feature this distinction and has its share of high priests, but another way it fails the test of being a religion is that most of its practitioners are comfortable with doubt and uncertainty. even ardent atheists will admit that there's simply no way to know for sure whether or not a god exists. this willingness to not know something with certainty makes it extremely difficult to motivate an atheist to extremism. i never stop asking myself, "how do i know if i'm right?" atheism is really about not having faith in things that are not directly observable. ever try to rouse a lynch mob composed of sceptics?
posted by klanawa at 1:30 PM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
- a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
- a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
- archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
- a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- a notion of the transcendent or numinous, often, but not always, in the form of theism
- a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete)
- a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents
where i take liberty, perhaps, is with the idea of eliminationism. but religion isn't about what its practitioners say, it's about how they behave. there are few, in the mainstream at least - probably because not having an "other" or "enemy" simply doesn't generate the kind of buzz a good religion needs - that don't rely on a distinction between "us" and "them."
interestingly, atheism does feature this distinction and has its share of high priests, but another way it fails the test of being a religion is that most of its practitioners are comfortable with doubt and uncertainty. even ardent atheists will admit that there's simply no way to know for sure whether or not a god exists. this willingness to not know something with certainty makes it extremely difficult to motivate an atheist to extremism. i never stop asking myself, "how do i know if i'm right?" atheism is really about not having faith in things that are not directly observable. ever try to rouse a lynch mob composed of sceptics?
posted by klanawa at 1:30 PM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
Data point: atheists can act like crazy religious nut jobs too.
posted by dmd at 3:53 PM on August 10, 2008
posted by dmd at 3:53 PM on August 10, 2008
Dawkins himself has said that he really kind of wishes he hadn't invented the meme concept, and that it's been extended way beyond what he ever intended.
posted by adamdschneider at 4:01 PM on August 10, 2008
posted by adamdschneider at 4:01 PM on August 10, 2008
Are there any true "militant atheism" organizations or "preachers" out there?
The only candidate I can suggest for that would be the Albanian Communist Party under Enver Hoxha.
They suppressed religious expression with a vehemence unmatched anywhere else in the former Communist countries. I remember that they went on a campaign to ban traditional names with Christian or Muslim roots like John, Mary or Muhammed and substitute old-timey pagan Illyrian names or political neologisms like "Marenglen" (Marx, Engels, Lenin) for the politically incorrect ones.
posted by jason's_planet at 8:26 PM on August 10, 2008
The only candidate I can suggest for that would be the Albanian Communist Party under Enver Hoxha.
They suppressed religious expression with a vehemence unmatched anywhere else in the former Communist countries. I remember that they went on a campaign to ban traditional names with Christian or Muslim roots like John, Mary or Muhammed and substitute old-timey pagan Illyrian names or political neologisms like "Marenglen" (Marx, Engels, Lenin) for the politically incorrect ones.
posted by jason's_planet at 8:26 PM on August 10, 2008
Communist states were much less atheistic than they were "transferers" of religious status from God and church to figureheads such as Stalin.
I'll yield the point. While I still think that a fundamentalist of classic communist ideology would have the potential to wage violence against believers, you've made a good argument that it never plays out that way with a revolutionary movement or communist state. (The practical benefits of manipulating or co-opting religion outweigh a purely ideological stance against them.)
posted by cowbellemoo at 8:47 PM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'll yield the point. While I still think that a fundamentalist of classic communist ideology would have the potential to wage violence against believers, you've made a good argument that it never plays out that way with a revolutionary movement or communist state. (The practical benefits of manipulating or co-opting religion outweigh a purely ideological stance against them.)
posted by cowbellemoo at 8:47 PM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
posted by mystyk at 11:44 PM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by mystyk at 11:44 PM on August 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
Atheism is just a lack of theism - a lack of belief. Although every major religion will contend at some point in an argument that atheism is a religion, that is a non-sequitor from the very definition of the word. A lack of belief does not imply a belief in the lacking. Of course, there will be some who adamantly believe there is no higher power, but most simply (and rightly) assert that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
This is why empiricism is so important to most atheists - it gives us evidence, which takes away the role of belief one way or another. If there is evidence for god(s), an empricist will evaluate that evidence and perhaps no longer be an atheist. Until that time, they continue to be asking "Where's the beef?" of those distinctly theist.
posted by mystyk at 11:53 PM on August 10, 2008
This is why empiricism is so important to most atheists - it gives us evidence, which takes away the role of belief one way or another. If there is evidence for god(s), an empricist will evaluate that evidence and perhaps no longer be an atheist. Until that time, they continue to be asking "Where's the beef?" of those distinctly theist.
posted by mystyk at 11:53 PM on August 10, 2008
Atheism is just a lack of theism - a lack of belief.
No, it's also a culture of snarking about religion and a mutual admiration society of people patting each other on the back complimenting each other about how rational they are.
An amusing thing is that atheists frequently think their attitude is very newfangled and rebellious, whereas in actuality it's something that was already quite widespread more than a century ago, even in Victorian times. Also amusing is the attempt of atheists to self-identify as members of an underdog movement - the "...no group has been more systematically persecuted..." type thing - which is basically a reenactment of Judeo-Christian martyrism. "Let my people go!"
I say this as an life-long atheist myself who has many close Christian friends. Being an atheist does not make anyone more rational than the average religious person. Really. And all the posing in that regard is just juvenile and annoying to anyone who hasn't drunk the LOLTHEIST kool-aid.
posted by XMLicious at 1:17 AM on August 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
No, it's also a culture of snarking about religion and a mutual admiration society of people patting each other on the back complimenting each other about how rational they are.
An amusing thing is that atheists frequently think their attitude is very newfangled and rebellious, whereas in actuality it's something that was already quite widespread more than a century ago, even in Victorian times. Also amusing is the attempt of atheists to self-identify as members of an underdog movement - the "...no group has been more systematically persecuted..." type thing - which is basically a reenactment of Judeo-Christian martyrism. "Let my people go!"
I say this as an life-long atheist myself who has many close Christian friends. Being an atheist does not make anyone more rational than the average religious person. Really. And all the posing in that regard is just juvenile and annoying to anyone who hasn't drunk the LOLTHEIST kool-aid.
posted by XMLicious at 1:17 AM on August 11, 2008 [2 favorites]
"No, it's also a culture of snarking about religion and a mutual admiration society of people patting each other on the back complimenting each other about how rational they are."
For some, yes. For most, I would not claim such confidence. The "culture of snarking...mutual admiration...complimenting each other..." etc. you describe here could just as validly be said about virtually any group of like-minded people. Hell, Star Trek geeks practice just this kind of behavior against Star Wars geeks, and vice-versa. Does that make it an inherent quality of being a ST/SW geek? No, it makes it a quality of BEING HUMAN!
I'm an atheist. Most of my friends are atheists. Most of my family is not. I've never spoken with a single atheist who said they believed that the idea was 1) newfangled or 2) rebellious. They always saw it as at least from the enlightenment (if not further) and more "common sense" than "fight the man."
Many I know have said they feel persecuted. Still, just as they say "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you," feeling persecuted can stem from something real, not just a "martytdom complex." I discuss this from the Military perspective here, and it shows how bad it honestly can get.
Right now, anyone who was openly an atheist would have virtually no chance of winning an election at any level of government, regardless of any other qualifications. The polls are pretty clear about this. Atheism, unlike all the religions, has the dubious honor of being despised and/or distrusted by almost everyone else, and certainly by all religious groups. We are labeled as immoral no mater what we do, and even in the face of the most extreme religious hypocrisy.
Yes, people with good ideas can also hold steadily onto bad ones. That doesn't make the good ideas somehow less good though. By metering everything through the eyes of empiricism and demanding evidence before you get taken seriously, atheism is a good idea compared to the alternatives of blind faith and willful ignorance.
posted by mystyk at 4:13 AM on August 11, 2008 [4 favorites]
For some, yes. For most, I would not claim such confidence. The "culture of snarking...mutual admiration...complimenting each other..." etc. you describe here could just as validly be said about virtually any group of like-minded people. Hell, Star Trek geeks practice just this kind of behavior against Star Wars geeks, and vice-versa. Does that make it an inherent quality of being a ST/SW geek? No, it makes it a quality of BEING HUMAN!
I'm an atheist. Most of my friends are atheists. Most of my family is not. I've never spoken with a single atheist who said they believed that the idea was 1) newfangled or 2) rebellious. They always saw it as at least from the enlightenment (if not further) and more "common sense" than "fight the man."
Many I know have said they feel persecuted. Still, just as they say "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you," feeling persecuted can stem from something real, not just a "martytdom complex." I discuss this from the Military perspective here, and it shows how bad it honestly can get.
Right now, anyone who was openly an atheist would have virtually no chance of winning an election at any level of government, regardless of any other qualifications. The polls are pretty clear about this. Atheism, unlike all the religions, has the dubious honor of being despised and/or distrusted by almost everyone else, and certainly by all religious groups. We are labeled as immoral no mater what we do, and even in the face of the most extreme religious hypocrisy.
Yes, people with good ideas can also hold steadily onto bad ones. That doesn't make the good ideas somehow less good though. By metering everything through the eyes of empiricism and demanding evidence before you get taken seriously, atheism is a good idea compared to the alternatives of blind faith and willful ignorance.
posted by mystyk at 4:13 AM on August 11, 2008 [4 favorites]
See - positioning the alternatives to atheism as "blind faith and willful ignorance"? Yeah, that would be exactly what I'm talking about. But go ahead, continue patting yourself on the back for being so super-duper rational.
If you treat religious people as though you're a Star Trek geek talking down to a Star Wars geek that is juvenile and annoying. Treating people with fundamental disagreements this way is not somehow endemic to human nature. It's quite possible to be atheistic without being sneeringly derogatory of religion. But unfortunately that's part of almost all the contemporary (and historical) atheist culture I've encountered in the US and Dawkins certainly projects the same attitude from the UK.
I find that if you take the beliefs of religious people seriously and treat them with respect in most cases you will be taken seriously yourself and also treated with respect. I have not experienced anything verging on persecution and I am regarded as a moral person - even by friends of mine who are Catholic and Episcopal clergy and even one Young Earth creationist Evangelical.
posted by XMLicious at 6:30 AM on August 11, 2008
If you treat religious people as though you're a Star Trek geek talking down to a Star Wars geek that is juvenile and annoying. Treating people with fundamental disagreements this way is not somehow endemic to human nature. It's quite possible to be atheistic without being sneeringly derogatory of religion. But unfortunately that's part of almost all the contemporary (and historical) atheist culture I've encountered in the US and Dawkins certainly projects the same attitude from the UK.
I find that if you take the beliefs of religious people seriously and treat them with respect in most cases you will be taken seriously yourself and also treated with respect. I have not experienced anything verging on persecution and I am regarded as a moral person - even by friends of mine who are Catholic and Episcopal clergy and even one Young Earth creationist Evangelical.
posted by XMLicious at 6:30 AM on August 11, 2008
See - positioning the alternatives to atheism as "blind faith and willful ignorance"?
This is why it comes down to evidence. Religion is just as good an explanation of the truly unknown as any other random conjecture. Once we gain an understanding, though, more depth to your ideas is crucial. We have quite a few people trying to insert their pseudo-science into everybody else's life by force of law, and somebody has to call them on their bullshit and say "Put up or shut up" or they will succeed. They think might makes right, as long as they have the might, and everyone is just bending over and taking it. (Interestingly, "might makes right" is sometimes endorsed by them as an extension of "survival of the fittest." The problem is that SOTF was a tool, an observation with no moral attachment, while they make a moral assessment out of it.)
The point isn't whether people should act juvenile and annoying when arguing about everything from StarWars/StarTrek to Evolution/Creation, but merely THAT they do. You placed it as if it was a natural outgrowth of atheism, and the point is that people act like that all over the place, which means the problem runs deeper. You're right, it is possible to be an atheist without "being sneeringly derogatory of religion," but only if you're willing to let slide all of the encroachments they are trying EVERY DAY to make in the lives of you and everyone you ever have or ever will know. They drew the battle lines; some of us atheists are just refusing to surrender without a fight.
Lastly, if you haven't felt them looking down at you, you're lucky. I guarantee you it is the rule, not the exception. Very few religious people I know have ever been kind to atheists of which they were aware, and one of the reasons I'm careful in mentioning my atheism to anybody I work with is because I've been burned more than once by their biases.
posted by mystyk at 7:24 AM on August 11, 2008
This is why it comes down to evidence. Religion is just as good an explanation of the truly unknown as any other random conjecture. Once we gain an understanding, though, more depth to your ideas is crucial. We have quite a few people trying to insert their pseudo-science into everybody else's life by force of law, and somebody has to call them on their bullshit and say "Put up or shut up" or they will succeed. They think might makes right, as long as they have the might, and everyone is just bending over and taking it. (Interestingly, "might makes right" is sometimes endorsed by them as an extension of "survival of the fittest." The problem is that SOTF was a tool, an observation with no moral attachment, while they make a moral assessment out of it.)
The point isn't whether people should act juvenile and annoying when arguing about everything from StarWars/StarTrek to Evolution/Creation, but merely THAT they do. You placed it as if it was a natural outgrowth of atheism, and the point is that people act like that all over the place, which means the problem runs deeper. You're right, it is possible to be an atheist without "being sneeringly derogatory of religion," but only if you're willing to let slide all of the encroachments they are trying EVERY DAY to make in the lives of you and everyone you ever have or ever will know. They drew the battle lines; some of us atheists are just refusing to surrender without a fight.
Lastly, if you haven't felt them looking down at you, you're lucky. I guarantee you it is the rule, not the exception. Very few religious people I know have ever been kind to atheists of which they were aware, and one of the reasons I'm careful in mentioning my atheism to anybody I work with is because I've been burned more than once by their biases.
posted by mystyk at 7:24 AM on August 11, 2008
The existence of a few outspoken sophists does not a 'culture' make.
People who make blanket statements about "most atheists" are like those who start sentences with "I'm not racist but...".
posted by signal at 8:03 AM on August 11, 2008
People who make blanket statements about "most atheists" are like those who start sentences with "I'm not racist but...".
posted by signal at 8:03 AM on August 11, 2008
We have quite a few people trying to insert their pseudo-science into everybody else's life by force of law, and somebody has to call them on their bullshit and say "Put up or shut up" or they will succeed.
What, like putting "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, or holding prayer in schools? Yeah, it's practically the Inquisition or the Holocaust or something.
The Establishment Clause of the Constitution should be defended and upheld but it's often religious people who are helping to do that. It's completely fallacious to connect that with some sort of need on your part to disprove other people's faith. You're describing an Atheist's Burden much like Kipling's White Man's Burden - a compulsion for the anointed and enlightened (by empiricism, in this case) to bring Civilization to the darkness of the rest of the world.
Your claim that you just have to be sneeringly derogatory of religion or otherwise "they" will win, that being respectful and humane towards the beliefs of others is "surrender" in some sort of war - this attitude is not rational.
I am not lucky. I am genuinely respected by my peers of religious faith and your belief that respect towards an atheist from "them" is impossible, is evidence of distorted and insufficiently empirical thinking on your part. I would lay odds that most or all of your difficulty in interacting with religious people is the fundamental and inherent lack of respect for any religious point of view which you are articulating here, rather than some sort of persecution.
posted by XMLicious at 8:13 AM on August 11, 2008
What, like putting "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, or holding prayer in schools? Yeah, it's practically the Inquisition or the Holocaust or something.
The Establishment Clause of the Constitution should be defended and upheld but it's often religious people who are helping to do that. It's completely fallacious to connect that with some sort of need on your part to disprove other people's faith. You're describing an Atheist's Burden much like Kipling's White Man's Burden - a compulsion for the anointed and enlightened (by empiricism, in this case) to bring Civilization to the darkness of the rest of the world.
Your claim that you just have to be sneeringly derogatory of religion or otherwise "they" will win, that being respectful and humane towards the beliefs of others is "surrender" in some sort of war - this attitude is not rational.
I am not lucky. I am genuinely respected by my peers of religious faith and your belief that respect towards an atheist from "them" is impossible, is evidence of distorted and insufficiently empirical thinking on your part. I would lay odds that most or all of your difficulty in interacting with religious people is the fundamental and inherent lack of respect for any religious point of view which you are articulating here, rather than some sort of persecution.
posted by XMLicious at 8:13 AM on August 11, 2008
People who make blanket statements about "most atheists" are like those who start sentences with "I'm not racist but...".
People who make up quotes to erect straw men are pretty pathetic too.
posted by XMLicious at 8:16 AM on August 11, 2008
People who make up quotes to erect straw men are pretty pathetic too.
posted by XMLicious at 8:16 AM on August 11, 2008
You're right that the Establishment Clause should indeed be defended and upheld. There is, however, a vocal minority that has substantial support from the majority that wants to tear down the wall between church and state permanently. That group does not - and fundamentally can not - think of atheists on equal terms.
I am not arguing a complete tearing down of civility. There are many religious folks who mind their own business, and a few who are willing to discuss the matter academically, and I DO respect that. What I try instead is to listen, and see how accepting they are before I even consider the option to engage the topic with them. What I hear time and again though, especially in the Military, sends chills down my spine.
Personally, I prefer a live and let live attitude. It is that vocal minority, though, that wants a war. They want it because, as I mentioned above, the majority will back them as it is the behavior that has been inculcated within them. It is this group that will never accept us that continually tries to encroach where they do not belong, and it is this that group which must be blocked from further success. There's a word for continuing to show respect to those who never had any intention of showing you any; it's called "Appeasement."
I figured it was only a matter of time before someone paid homage to Godwin's Law. You're right, of course; this isn't the Holocaust or the Inquisition. The operative question should be, however, "Does it need to be in order to justify alarm?" Being one of the most free societies on Earth doesn't mean that you stop trying to be better; you'll start to regress before long. Some of these people really do want to lock us up or kill us for our beliefs, and if your only concern is showing "respect" not only to moderates but to their extremist brethren, then the day may not be that far off when they succeed in stripping our rights.
posted by mystyk at 9:09 AM on August 11, 2008
I am not arguing a complete tearing down of civility. There are many religious folks who mind their own business, and a few who are willing to discuss the matter academically, and I DO respect that. What I try instead is to listen, and see how accepting they are before I even consider the option to engage the topic with them. What I hear time and again though, especially in the Military, sends chills down my spine.
Personally, I prefer a live and let live attitude. It is that vocal minority, though, that wants a war. They want it because, as I mentioned above, the majority will back them as it is the behavior that has been inculcated within them. It is this group that will never accept us that continually tries to encroach where they do not belong, and it is this that group which must be blocked from further success. There's a word for continuing to show respect to those who never had any intention of showing you any; it's called "Appeasement."
I figured it was only a matter of time before someone paid homage to Godwin's Law. You're right, of course; this isn't the Holocaust or the Inquisition. The operative question should be, however, "Does it need to be in order to justify alarm?" Being one of the most free societies on Earth doesn't mean that you stop trying to be better; you'll start to regress before long. Some of these people really do want to lock us up or kill us for our beliefs, and if your only concern is showing "respect" not only to moderates but to their extremist brethren, then the day may not be that far off when they succeed in stripping our rights.
posted by mystyk at 9:09 AM on August 11, 2008
I don't doubt that there are some people who feel the way you describe - but in having attended a Catholic college, and since then ranging pretty far and wide around the US and having some pretty sincere and in-depth conversations about religion with many stripes of Christian, Jews, and sundry others, as well as on many occasions being party to conversations about religion without anyone knowing I was an atheist; and also having read a fair bit of religious literature, including things in reaction to atheism like G. K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man; in all that I haven't personally encountered this brewing or ongoing war you're describing.
But even say that it's a coincidence and the sentiments you're describing are far more widespread than my personal experience would lead me to believe: you still haven't explained how atheists acting snarky or asserting that all religion is "random conjecture" and "blind faith and willful ignorance" would help any. Being snarky and intolerant isn't some sort of weapon or tactic that's going to make any headway in a culture war.
And your statement that if atheists were to show more respect for other people's beliefs, "then the day may not be that far off when they succeed in stripping our rights." - total FUD. Again, not rational, not even an appeal to rationality.
To connect somewhat to the OP's question, I think that the term "militant atheist" which has been used in recent years isn't referring to armed conflict, it's referring to people like you - atheists who believe atheism is in this war with religion you describe, or needs to make that sort of war on religion, and act accordingly.
posted by XMLicious at 1:54 PM on August 11, 2008
But even say that it's a coincidence and the sentiments you're describing are far more widespread than my personal experience would lead me to believe: you still haven't explained how atheists acting snarky or asserting that all religion is "random conjecture" and "blind faith and willful ignorance" would help any. Being snarky and intolerant isn't some sort of weapon or tactic that's going to make any headway in a culture war.
And your statement that if atheists were to show more respect for other people's beliefs, "then the day may not be that far off when they succeed in stripping our rights." - total FUD. Again, not rational, not even an appeal to rationality.
To connect somewhat to the OP's question, I think that the term "militant atheist" which has been used in recent years isn't referring to armed conflict, it's referring to people like you - atheists who believe atheism is in this war with religion you describe, or needs to make that sort of war on religion, and act accordingly.
posted by XMLicious at 1:54 PM on August 11, 2008
There are a decent number of people who feel as I do. They're more common than I ever realized, too. Still, as I have said multiple times above, it is the fringe minority of religious people that seeks to actively strip us of our rights. It is the mainstream religious community whose main fault is never challenging extremism within their own ranks.
Virtually every atheist I know who was ever been a member of the military feels this way, too (it also seems the more recent their military affiliation, the stronger the sentiment...which itself is somewhat telling). It's not easy to deal with direct accusations because you did not bow your head during an invocation for a secular event. And, of course, it's almost always distinctly a Christian invocation (although that probably is just because of demographics). Tell that specialist that got death threats that he really just has a "martyrdom complex."
This is why, as said above more than once, I LISTEN first. Many people can not discuss atheism on equitable terms. Some can. As also said above, those who cannot I typically avoid. I only start getting vocal when somebody wants to strip away my standing because of my atheism, and one glance around the cultural and legal landscape quickly confirms that those hateful few have a supremely disproportionate voice.
Religion is not a random conjecture, but a very specific supernatural one. What I said was that in the absence of any evidence (in other words, when talking about the truly unknown) it is roughly equally as good as explaining the phenomenon. Faith, however, is literally a belief in something without need for evidence. In that case, there are three forms: Blind faith (that where no evidence is ever considered), willful ignorance (that where evidence to the contrary is routinely discarded), or faith in concert with evidence (which removes the necessity of holding an idea on faith at all). In other words, no matter how you slice it, there is an academic reason why faith has no reason to be. The fact that the evidence is routinely not in the favor of the religious puts them on the defensive, because then their religion must rely on faith rather than on evidence.
Also, as said above, I'm not generally in favor of the snarky attitude. I do, however, recognize that a certain subset of any population will undoubtedly be that way. I wish that some of the more prominent atheists could come off as less combative, although if you were in their shoes it would likely be difficult to avoid sounding the same way. I can, and have had, respectful conversations with some of the more moderate voices, but they become increasingly rare as I see religion further defined by the radical views.
As for "militant atheism," I'm probably not the exact fit for what's implied, but I'll agree at least so far as I'm not far off. Remember, though, that "militant" is only being tacked on as a pejorative. Virtually none of the violence in the world today can be attributed to atheism (thanks DeeXtrovert for providing a good explanation of the "communism != atheism" angle that most people never consider). There is an active effort to define dissent from religion as militant in order to lump us in with terrorists and their ilk, and if you can't see that then you probably aren't looking.
posted by mystyk at 9:42 PM on August 11, 2008
Virtually every atheist I know who was ever been a member of the military feels this way, too (it also seems the more recent their military affiliation, the stronger the sentiment...which itself is somewhat telling). It's not easy to deal with direct accusations because you did not bow your head during an invocation for a secular event. And, of course, it's almost always distinctly a Christian invocation (although that probably is just because of demographics). Tell that specialist that got death threats that he really just has a "martyrdom complex."
This is why, as said above more than once, I LISTEN first. Many people can not discuss atheism on equitable terms. Some can. As also said above, those who cannot I typically avoid. I only start getting vocal when somebody wants to strip away my standing because of my atheism, and one glance around the cultural and legal landscape quickly confirms that those hateful few have a supremely disproportionate voice.
Religion is not a random conjecture, but a very specific supernatural one. What I said was that in the absence of any evidence (in other words, when talking about the truly unknown) it is roughly equally as good as explaining the phenomenon. Faith, however, is literally a belief in something without need for evidence. In that case, there are three forms: Blind faith (that where no evidence is ever considered), willful ignorance (that where evidence to the contrary is routinely discarded), or faith in concert with evidence (which removes the necessity of holding an idea on faith at all). In other words, no matter how you slice it, there is an academic reason why faith has no reason to be. The fact that the evidence is routinely not in the favor of the religious puts them on the defensive, because then their religion must rely on faith rather than on evidence.
Also, as said above, I'm not generally in favor of the snarky attitude. I do, however, recognize that a certain subset of any population will undoubtedly be that way. I wish that some of the more prominent atheists could come off as less combative, although if you were in their shoes it would likely be difficult to avoid sounding the same way. I can, and have had, respectful conversations with some of the more moderate voices, but they become increasingly rare as I see religion further defined by the radical views.
As for "militant atheism," I'm probably not the exact fit for what's implied, but I'll agree at least so far as I'm not far off. Remember, though, that "militant" is only being tacked on as a pejorative. Virtually none of the violence in the world today can be attributed to atheism (thanks DeeXtrovert for providing a good explanation of the "communism != atheism" angle that most people never consider). There is an active effort to define dissent from religion as militant in order to lump us in with terrorists and their ilk, and if you can't see that then you probably aren't looking.
posted by mystyk at 9:42 PM on August 11, 2008
Ugh! I apologize for the poor grammar in some areas of the preceeding comment. I know it may make it harder to follow, especially re-reading the first paragraph. I had just gotten up when I wrote that.
posted by mystyk at 10:47 PM on August 11, 2008
posted by mystyk at 10:47 PM on August 11, 2008
In other words, no matter how you slice it, there is an academic reason why faith has no reason to be.
Only if you assume or assert that the beliefs of others have an invalid basis - as you have been doing by automatically, categorically, sight-unseen placing all religion under "blind faith and willful ignorance" rather than "faith in concert with evidence" in the taxonomy you laid out: another example of prejudiced and irrational thinking.
Remember, though, that "militant" is only being tacked on as a pejorative.
No, it isn't. It's being used in the sense of hardened intolerance of other points of view combined with strict dogmatism - as in the phrase "militant feminism" for example.
There are a decent number of people who feel as I do.
Yes, there is an expansive and broad atheist culture of people who feel and act this way and treat religion the way you're describing. That's exactly what I'm saying: this prominent and self-identifying culture is what many people think of when they think of "atheism" and it is disingenuous to respond to criticisms of that culture with evasive statements like "atheism is just a lack of theism - a lack of belief" as if you don't know what they're talking about.
It's certainly not the only atheist culture that can be defined - heck, the Jesuits asserted that Chinese culture is atheistic, which would make the rest of us a small minority - which is why I have not made any "blanket statements about 'most atheists'", to quote signal's misquote of me.
But this is the atheist culture that sets up atheist web sites and atheist discussion forums all over the internet and is the market for which people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins write snarky or intolerant books for like The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice and The God Delusion. It's utterly silly to pretend this culture doesn't exist, or that it's just a marginal or extremest part of atheist culture: yet exactly that pretense is very frequently contrived when any criticism of it is made.
Tell that specialist that got death threats that he really just has a "martyrdom complex."
You again completely fabricate a quote from me here.
I certainly believe that those sort of death threats may have occurred but that doesn't make atheism into an oppressed or persecuted group. There are wackos that send Hollywood celebrities death threats too but that doesn't make Hollywood celebrities an oppressed and persecuted group.
One thing I will say is that I'm somewhat aware of the mandatory prayer situation in the US military, which you mentioned in a thread you linked to earlier, and how declaring yourself an atheist to avoid that can lose you some logistical advantages, which sucks. I have a relative who is an atheist Marine.
posted by XMLicious at 6:47 AM on August 12, 2008
Only if you assume or assert that the beliefs of others have an invalid basis - as you have been doing by automatically, categorically, sight-unseen placing all religion under "blind faith and willful ignorance" rather than "faith in concert with evidence" in the taxonomy you laid out: another example of prejudiced and irrational thinking.
Remember, though, that "militant" is only being tacked on as a pejorative.
No, it isn't. It's being used in the sense of hardened intolerance of other points of view combined with strict dogmatism - as in the phrase "militant feminism" for example.
There are a decent number of people who feel as I do.
Yes, there is an expansive and broad atheist culture of people who feel and act this way and treat religion the way you're describing. That's exactly what I'm saying: this prominent and self-identifying culture is what many people think of when they think of "atheism" and it is disingenuous to respond to criticisms of that culture with evasive statements like "atheism is just a lack of theism - a lack of belief" as if you don't know what they're talking about.
It's certainly not the only atheist culture that can be defined - heck, the Jesuits asserted that Chinese culture is atheistic, which would make the rest of us a small minority - which is why I have not made any "blanket statements about 'most atheists'", to quote signal's misquote of me.
But this is the atheist culture that sets up atheist web sites and atheist discussion forums all over the internet and is the market for which people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins write snarky or intolerant books for like The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice and The God Delusion. It's utterly silly to pretend this culture doesn't exist, or that it's just a marginal or extremest part of atheist culture: yet exactly that pretense is very frequently contrived when any criticism of it is made.
Tell that specialist that got death threats that he really just has a "martyrdom complex."
You again completely fabricate a quote from me here.
I certainly believe that those sort of death threats may have occurred but that doesn't make atheism into an oppressed or persecuted group. There are wackos that send Hollywood celebrities death threats too but that doesn't make Hollywood celebrities an oppressed and persecuted group.
One thing I will say is that I'm somewhat aware of the mandatory prayer situation in the US military, which you mentioned in a thread you linked to earlier, and how declaring yourself an atheist to avoid that can lose you some logistical advantages, which sucks. I have a relative who is an atheist Marine.
posted by XMLicious at 6:47 AM on August 12, 2008
which is why I have not made any "blanket statements about 'most atheists'", to quote signal's misquote of me.
Why would you assume I was talking about you? Not everyone is, you know.
posted by signal at 7:53 AM on August 12, 2008
Why would you assume I was talking about you? Not everyone is, you know.
posted by signal at 7:53 AM on August 12, 2008
Why would you assume I was talking about you?
Because you preceded that by saying The existence of a few outspoken sophists does not a 'culture' make and I'm the only other person who used the word "culture" in this thread. But sure, pretend you were making a completely spontaneous comment unrelated to the rest of the conversation.
I'd also point out that you assumed I was talking about you here. Not everything's about you, ya know.
posted by XMLicious at 9:11 AM on August 12, 2008
Because you preceded that by saying The existence of a few outspoken sophists does not a 'culture' make and I'm the only other person who used the word "culture" in this thread. But sure, pretend you were making a completely spontaneous comment unrelated to the rest of the conversation.
I'd also point out that you assumed I was talking about you here. Not everything's about you, ya know.
posted by XMLicious at 9:11 AM on August 12, 2008
Except that the taxonomy is exactly what you see. Faith is limited in its meaning to being one of those three basic forms, or a combination thereof. You may use different, more colorful language to describe those forms, but the underlying qualities are there. "Blind faith" and "willful ignorance" have no rational basis, and "faith in concert with the evidence" is worthless because at a certain point it makes sense to stop relying on the faith as your justification and rely on the evidence instead.
You seem to be getting quite uppity about quoting, so I'll spell it out. My use of "militant atheism" doesn't need to match your exact wording. It's taken directly from the OP, including the quotes! Plus, it would be irrational (a word you've grown quite fond of) to assume you were talking about anything else when you wrote:
which is basically a reenactment of Judeo-Christian martyrism. "Let my people go!"
I've enjoyed watching you get increasingly combative, demeaning and attacking other people's words and thoughts. It's as if you've become the very thing you were decrying. :)
"There are a decent number of people who feel as I do."
This is one of the lines I wrote while still waking up. In the interest of being clear, what I intended was "who feel as they do." I was referring to two phenomenon: that the minority that wishes atheists ill is at the larger end of the spectrum for what can be considered a minority, and that the majority does not see anything wrong with the minority's stance, and while they may not join in they certainly never denounce. Please try to re-read with this understanding, as it also removes the redundancy of the second paragraph addressing the atheist perspective.
This also brings me to your comment about movie stars. Yes, a few nut-jobs DO threaten hollywood actors. The difference is that while atheists are also only directly threatened with violence by a small group, mainstream society manages to denounce the actions of the hollywood nut-jobs where they cannot bring themselves to do the same denunciation of threats against us. That should be alarming. It only takes one wacko in a million if the other 999,999 will never feel he did anything wrong!
"No, it isn't. It's being used in the sense of hardened intolerance of other points of view combined with strict dogmatism - as in the phrase "militant feminism" for example."
Ah, yes. Our old friend relativism. First, not all points of view are equal. If I asserted, fully seriously, that the world was held up by Atlas or that faeries make the forests grow, I would certainly not be taken seriously and might even be locked up. Empiricism has an advantage that mysticism never will: we don't define truth as what we want to believe. Second, I (and the vast majority of atheists) are quite tolerant of what people want to believe on their own. Hell, even Stephen Harris and Richard Dawkins will agree with this, even though they'll consider it misguided. What I'm intolerant of is people imposing their belief structures on me and saying that I have to agree and behave a certain way, without providing one shred of actual evidence for why. Third, what exactly is the dogmatism of asking for evidence? Why is it that when asked for evidence, a religious person can get away with saying "I take it on faith," while an atheist who says "let me collect my data and I'll show you" will be accused of having none and have summary judgment be passed?
Anyway, I have to get to work now. Unfortunately, these damn wars over sand and oil won't take a break just so we can chat.
posted by mystyk at 9:41 PM on August 12, 2008
You seem to be getting quite uppity about quoting, so I'll spell it out. My use of "militant atheism" doesn't need to match your exact wording. It's taken directly from the OP, including the quotes! Plus, it would be irrational (a word you've grown quite fond of) to assume you were talking about anything else when you wrote:
which is basically a reenactment of Judeo-Christian martyrism. "Let my people go!"
I've enjoyed watching you get increasingly combative, demeaning and attacking other people's words and thoughts. It's as if you've become the very thing you were decrying. :)
"There are a decent number of people who feel as I do."
This is one of the lines I wrote while still waking up. In the interest of being clear, what I intended was "who feel as they do." I was referring to two phenomenon: that the minority that wishes atheists ill is at the larger end of the spectrum for what can be considered a minority, and that the majority does not see anything wrong with the minority's stance, and while they may not join in they certainly never denounce. Please try to re-read with this understanding, as it also removes the redundancy of the second paragraph addressing the atheist perspective.
This also brings me to your comment about movie stars. Yes, a few nut-jobs DO threaten hollywood actors. The difference is that while atheists are also only directly threatened with violence by a small group, mainstream society manages to denounce the actions of the hollywood nut-jobs where they cannot bring themselves to do the same denunciation of threats against us. That should be alarming. It only takes one wacko in a million if the other 999,999 will never feel he did anything wrong!
"No, it isn't. It's being used in the sense of hardened intolerance of other points of view combined with strict dogmatism - as in the phrase "militant feminism" for example."
Ah, yes. Our old friend relativism. First, not all points of view are equal. If I asserted, fully seriously, that the world was held up by Atlas or that faeries make the forests grow, I would certainly not be taken seriously and might even be locked up. Empiricism has an advantage that mysticism never will: we don't define truth as what we want to believe. Second, I (and the vast majority of atheists) are quite tolerant of what people want to believe on their own. Hell, even Stephen Harris and Richard Dawkins will agree with this, even though they'll consider it misguided. What I'm intolerant of is people imposing their belief structures on me and saying that I have to agree and behave a certain way, without providing one shred of actual evidence for why. Third, what exactly is the dogmatism of asking for evidence? Why is it that when asked for evidence, a religious person can get away with saying "I take it on faith," while an atheist who says "let me collect my data and I'll show you" will be accused of having none and have summary judgment be passed?
Anyway, I have to get to work now. Unfortunately, these damn wars over sand and oil won't take a break just so we can chat.
posted by mystyk at 9:41 PM on August 12, 2008
"You seem to be getting quite uppity about quoting, so I'll spell it out."
Ok, I goofed on this one. I mixed two different terms. I really need to stop writing such long posts when I just woke up. "militant atheism" is a direct quotation from the OP. "martyrdom complex" is a paraphrasing of the ideas that many people were saying in different ways, but meaning the same thing. I use the term because it's simple, to the point, and easy to use in a sentence. I contend it is an accurate representation of the comment of yours that I quoted in that same section.
posted by mystyk at 10:56 PM on August 12, 2008
Ok, I goofed on this one. I mixed two different terms. I really need to stop writing such long posts when I just woke up. "militant atheism" is a direct quotation from the OP. "martyrdom complex" is a paraphrasing of the ideas that many people were saying in different ways, but meaning the same thing. I use the term because it's simple, to the point, and easy to use in a sentence. I contend it is an accurate representation of the comment of yours that I quoted in that same section.
posted by mystyk at 10:56 PM on August 12, 2008
My use of "militant atheism" doesn't need to match your exact wording.
There's been alot of using quotation marks in characterizing my views. Especially if you're going to put your own spin on anything I've said, please don't use quotation marks unless you're actually quoting me.
Plus, it would be irrational (a word you've grown quite fond of) to assume you were talking about anything else when you wrote:
The bit you quoted does not say anything about atheists having psychological complexes, nor was I stating anything of the sort when I said that self-characterization as an underdog group is like Judeo-Christian martyrism. By which I mean the cultural theme that Jews and Christians often regard themselves as persecuted like the Israelites under Pharaoh or like the Christian martyrs, even when they've been on top and were the ones doing the persecuting, or in instances when they just aren't being persecuted at all.
An amusing similarity, nothing more. My understanding is that a "martyrdom complex" is basically a psychological problem manifesting as a death-wish and that has nothing to do with what I was saying.
The difference is that while atheists are also only directly threatened with violence by a small group, mainstream society manages to denounce the actions of the hollywood nut-jobs where they cannot bring themselves to do the same denunciation of threats against us. That should be alarming.
If death threats against someone are not dealt with seriously in the case you mention, I agree that this is alarming for a variety of reasons. It's still pretty far from evidence of widespread or mainstream persecution of a class of people, though.
I'm sorry man, I've been openly an atheist my entire life, lived in some pretty intensely religious environments - like at a Catholic college administered by a monastic order, like regularly dealing with Evangelical Christians and conversing with them about religion, and I just haven't seen anything like the persecution and war you're describing. I haven't lost any business contracts because I'm an atheist, I haven't been denied jobs or been denied any sort of services because I'm an atheist, I didn't get bad grades from monks or rabidly Catholic professors who knew I was an atheist, I haven't even very often experienced people being rude to me because I'm an atheist.
Ah, yes. Our old friend relativism.
Uh, no, just our old friend the way the word militant is used.
First, not all points of view are equal.
If I thought you were talking about view points on the usage of the word "militant" I would engage you.
But you're not - you didn't even say anything on that count (after some un-explained insinuation that using "militant" in the manner described is relativism, if I'm correctly guessing the meaning of that?). You just swerved off into saying a bunch of stuff dissing religion and asserting persecution of and rational superiority of atheists. This kind of interlocution is what many people think of when they think of atheists, I believe.
Like, what the heck is the point of asking me questions like "what exactly is the dogmatism of asking for evidence?" I didn't say anything about dogmatism, nor have I criticized empiricism or asking questions. It seems like you're just asking that for effect - so you can take another opportunity to make a criticism of religion and vaunt your (and atheists' in general) use of empiricism - especially with sticking "exactly" in there as though you're reacting to something I've said.
P.S. Thank you for your military service. Regardless of our disagreements I respect you for that. (And that respect for you is not any form of surrender. ;^)
posted by XMLicious at 11:28 PM on August 12, 2008
There's been alot of using quotation marks in characterizing my views. Especially if you're going to put your own spin on anything I've said, please don't use quotation marks unless you're actually quoting me.
Plus, it would be irrational (a word you've grown quite fond of) to assume you were talking about anything else when you wrote:
The bit you quoted does not say anything about atheists having psychological complexes, nor was I stating anything of the sort when I said that self-characterization as an underdog group is like Judeo-Christian martyrism. By which I mean the cultural theme that Jews and Christians often regard themselves as persecuted like the Israelites under Pharaoh or like the Christian martyrs, even when they've been on top and were the ones doing the persecuting, or in instances when they just aren't being persecuted at all.
An amusing similarity, nothing more. My understanding is that a "martyrdom complex" is basically a psychological problem manifesting as a death-wish and that has nothing to do with what I was saying.
The difference is that while atheists are also only directly threatened with violence by a small group, mainstream society manages to denounce the actions of the hollywood nut-jobs where they cannot bring themselves to do the same denunciation of threats against us. That should be alarming.
If death threats against someone are not dealt with seriously in the case you mention, I agree that this is alarming for a variety of reasons. It's still pretty far from evidence of widespread or mainstream persecution of a class of people, though.
I'm sorry man, I've been openly an atheist my entire life, lived in some pretty intensely religious environments - like at a Catholic college administered by a monastic order, like regularly dealing with Evangelical Christians and conversing with them about religion, and I just haven't seen anything like the persecution and war you're describing. I haven't lost any business contracts because I'm an atheist, I haven't been denied jobs or been denied any sort of services because I'm an atheist, I didn't get bad grades from monks or rabidly Catholic professors who knew I was an atheist, I haven't even very often experienced people being rude to me because I'm an atheist.
Ah, yes. Our old friend relativism.
Uh, no, just our old friend the way the word militant is used.
First, not all points of view are equal.
If I thought you were talking about view points on the usage of the word "militant" I would engage you.
But you're not - you didn't even say anything on that count (after some un-explained insinuation that using "militant" in the manner described is relativism, if I'm correctly guessing the meaning of that?). You just swerved off into saying a bunch of stuff dissing religion and asserting persecution of and rational superiority of atheists. This kind of interlocution is what many people think of when they think of atheists, I believe.
Like, what the heck is the point of asking me questions like "what exactly is the dogmatism of asking for evidence?" I didn't say anything about dogmatism, nor have I criticized empiricism or asking questions. It seems like you're just asking that for effect - so you can take another opportunity to make a criticism of religion and vaunt your (and atheists' in general) use of empiricism - especially with sticking "exactly" in there as though you're reacting to something I've said.
P.S. Thank you for your military service. Regardless of our disagreements I respect you for that. (And that respect for you is not any form of surrender. ;^)
posted by XMLicious at 11:28 PM on August 12, 2008
I didn't preview and so I didn't see your last paragraph "Ok, I goofed..." there.
posted by XMLicious at 11:33 PM on August 12, 2008
posted by XMLicious at 11:33 PM on August 12, 2008
Also, I did understand that you were quoting "militant atheism" from the OP (and I've said it too), it was exclusively the "martyrdom complex" thing I was objecting to.
posted by XMLicious at 11:41 PM on August 12, 2008
posted by XMLicious at 11:41 PM on August 12, 2008
No, the relativism is directly related to the points of view, because not all points of view deserve tolerance! You would not describe someone as militant in opposing the KKK, or even in pointing out the lunacy of believing in Atlas as in my previous example., Somehow, though, in opposing a particular subset of possible religious views, all of them suddenly become sacrosanct? You have to confer a level of validity upon these beliefs that they make no effort to earn before you can assert intolerance to them (specifically, intolerance to them pushing crap on others) as anything less than rational. I am intolerant to BS being shoved at me. As I have said before, I don't have a problem with people holding beliefs, even wacky ones like TimeCube, but I do have a problem with them imposing them.
It is true that we seem to be operating on slightly different definitions of the word "militant." The reason I say it is used as a pejorative is because it is; the people most commonly describing atheism as militant are trying to link us to terrorists and to atrocities such as the Holocaust. The definition they draw a parallel with is that of an active, armed combatant - and we both know that's an inaccurate tie. You seem more comfortable using it in the looser context of someone agressive and passionate about a cause. In that context, yes, I am a militant atheist, but as I said above, I'm not the proper example of what is being implied in the regular use of the term, nor is any other atheist I have met!
"I didn't say anything about dogmatism..."
I beg to differ:
"It's being used in the sense of hardened intolerance of other points of view combined with strict dogmatism..."
My point was simple: How is the insistence that one produce evidence for their claims dogmatic? It's not like I exempt myself from that rule and only apply it to others...
"You just swerved off into saying a bunch of stuff dissing religion and asserting persecution of and rational superiority of atheists."
No, not the rational superiority of athists, but of atheism as opposed to mysticism/supernaturalism/theism or whatever else people want to call it. Atheists are people too, and make dumb choices and hold dumb ideas just like everyone else, but making empirical reasoning the default when examining the world around you is NOT one of them.
As for martyrdom complex (no quotes!), I apologize if my use of quotes was confusing. In context, it seemed clear to me, but if I was not communicating as clearly as I should because of that, I'll refrain from the slightly more liberal use I've allowed. Anyway, such a martyrdom complex can encompass both the literal desire to become a martyr and the feeling that one is being persecuted into becoming one. My mother used to call this "playing the martyr," since it is typically an appeal for sympathy and aid.
Lastly, thank you for the kind words about my Military service. I don't want to be here, but here I am none the less. I expect nothing out of it in this forum except to use as a way of relating some experiences that would not have happened otherwise, and to explain why my comments are sometimes cut shorter that they would otherwise be. I thank you for listening to my experiences, as it is obviously also an aspect of living as an atheist with which you seem unfamiliar. I feel that we have fertile ground along this avenue for future discussion.
posted by mystyk at 3:53 AM on August 13, 2008
It is true that we seem to be operating on slightly different definitions of the word "militant." The reason I say it is used as a pejorative is because it is; the people most commonly describing atheism as militant are trying to link us to terrorists and to atrocities such as the Holocaust. The definition they draw a parallel with is that of an active, armed combatant - and we both know that's an inaccurate tie. You seem more comfortable using it in the looser context of someone agressive and passionate about a cause. In that context, yes, I am a militant atheist, but as I said above, I'm not the proper example of what is being implied in the regular use of the term, nor is any other atheist I have met!
"I didn't say anything about dogmatism..."
I beg to differ:
"It's being used in the sense of hardened intolerance of other points of view combined with strict dogmatism..."
My point was simple: How is the insistence that one produce evidence for their claims dogmatic? It's not like I exempt myself from that rule and only apply it to others...
"You just swerved off into saying a bunch of stuff dissing religion and asserting persecution of and rational superiority of atheists."
No, not the rational superiority of athists, but of atheism as opposed to mysticism/supernaturalism/theism or whatever else people want to call it. Atheists are people too, and make dumb choices and hold dumb ideas just like everyone else, but making empirical reasoning the default when examining the world around you is NOT one of them.
As for martyrdom complex (no quotes!), I apologize if my use of quotes was confusing. In context, it seemed clear to me, but if I was not communicating as clearly as I should because of that, I'll refrain from the slightly more liberal use I've allowed. Anyway, such a martyrdom complex can encompass both the literal desire to become a martyr and the feeling that one is being persecuted into becoming one. My mother used to call this "playing the martyr," since it is typically an appeal for sympathy and aid.
Lastly, thank you for the kind words about my Military service. I don't want to be here, but here I am none the less. I expect nothing out of it in this forum except to use as a way of relating some experiences that would not have happened otherwise, and to explain why my comments are sometimes cut shorter that they would otherwise be. I thank you for listening to my experiences, as it is obviously also an aspect of living as an atheist with which you seem unfamiliar. I feel that we have fertile ground along this avenue for future discussion.
posted by mystyk at 3:53 AM on August 13, 2008
I did say "dogmatism." You're right, my bad.
No, the relativism is directly related to the points of view, because not all points of view deserve tolerance!
I would agree - but I don't think you're successfully making the case that it's solely due to cool empirical reasoning that we can conclude all religious points of view deserve intolerance. It looks to me like you're starting off with that assumption, before any analysis really begins.
You would not describe someone as militant in opposing the KKK,
I would, personally. John Brown represented militant opposition to viewpoints like the KKK's (even if you look at his behavior separate from his actual vigilante actions) whereas Martin Luther King, Jr. would represent pacifist and nonviolent opposition to that stuff. Both of them are correct in opposing racism - but I think it is valid to characterize the first as militant in his opposition and the latter much less so.
Somehow, though, in opposing a particular subset of possible religious views, all of them suddenly become sacrosanct?
To show respect for someone else's point of view is to by no means treat it as sacrosanct. I make some hard criticisms of the opinions and beliefs of my religious friends and acquaintances. When we're talking about that kind of stuff I have no problem telling them when they're full of shit and engaging in sophistry. But I don't start from the assumption that their every thought and opinion relating to religion or metaphysics is unintelligible, kooky, or the product of a weak mind that can't engage in rational thought.
the people most commonly describing atheism as militant are trying to link us to terrorists and to atrocities such as the Holocaust.
I do not think so. Like I said, I think it's most commonly used with the same meaning as in "militant feminism". Or in the same sense as "Nazi" is used in the name Seinfeld character "the Soup Nazi." Note also the term "feminazi" for militant feminists - that is not alleging that they're a group of feminists who are planning on invading Poland, it's saying that their attitude and philosophy is reminiscent of Germanic "Blut und Eisen" indurateness.
The definition they draw a parallel with is that of an active, armed combatant - and we both know that's an inaccurate tie.
I certainly agree that if someone was trying to make that claim, then yes, only small historical groups of atheists would fit that - like the Albanian Communists or the French revolutionaries mentioned above - certainly not any contemporary Western atheist groups.
How is the insistence that one produce evidence for their claims dogmatic?
If I was going to use that term, which I admit is probably a bit excessive, it would probably be in relation to the a priori assertion that religious belief must stem from non-evidence and non-reasoning, something which I think is really an assumption that precedes any asking of questions in most cases.
In straightforwardly and sincerely speaking with religious people about the motivations behind their faith I seem to find that there is frequently quite a lot of rational thought and evidence behind it. They tend to reach different conclusions than I would based on the same evidence, and they often start from different assumptions than I would. But I believe that for me to label my own thinking as empirical or especially rational, and their thinking as not, would be waaaay overreaching on my part.
The way I see it, if you were really going to be strictly rational and empirical in your metaphysical musings there's just no way you would ever be able to get very far beyond solipsism. To even say that the world perceived by our senses exists for the sake of basing arguments of divine existence or non-existence on - that seems like an absurd leap of faith in and of itself to me. So I'm generally unimpressed with the whole host of assumptions I frequently observe other atheists making when they start engaging religious people in vicious arguments about what is true and what is not true and what the basis for one's beliefs is. Relative to any solipsist I regard the average religious person I've known and the average atheist I've known to be comparatively close in their beliefs.
posted by XMLicious at 3:17 PM on August 13, 2008
No, the relativism is directly related to the points of view, because not all points of view deserve tolerance!
I would agree - but I don't think you're successfully making the case that it's solely due to cool empirical reasoning that we can conclude all religious points of view deserve intolerance. It looks to me like you're starting off with that assumption, before any analysis really begins.
You would not describe someone as militant in opposing the KKK,
I would, personally. John Brown represented militant opposition to viewpoints like the KKK's (even if you look at his behavior separate from his actual vigilante actions) whereas Martin Luther King, Jr. would represent pacifist and nonviolent opposition to that stuff. Both of them are correct in opposing racism - but I think it is valid to characterize the first as militant in his opposition and the latter much less so.
Somehow, though, in opposing a particular subset of possible religious views, all of them suddenly become sacrosanct?
To show respect for someone else's point of view is to by no means treat it as sacrosanct. I make some hard criticisms of the opinions and beliefs of my religious friends and acquaintances. When we're talking about that kind of stuff I have no problem telling them when they're full of shit and engaging in sophistry. But I don't start from the assumption that their every thought and opinion relating to religion or metaphysics is unintelligible, kooky, or the product of a weak mind that can't engage in rational thought.
the people most commonly describing atheism as militant are trying to link us to terrorists and to atrocities such as the Holocaust.
I do not think so. Like I said, I think it's most commonly used with the same meaning as in "militant feminism". Or in the same sense as "Nazi" is used in the name Seinfeld character "the Soup Nazi." Note also the term "feminazi" for militant feminists - that is not alleging that they're a group of feminists who are planning on invading Poland, it's saying that their attitude and philosophy is reminiscent of Germanic "Blut und Eisen" indurateness.
The definition they draw a parallel with is that of an active, armed combatant - and we both know that's an inaccurate tie.
I certainly agree that if someone was trying to make that claim, then yes, only small historical groups of atheists would fit that - like the Albanian Communists or the French revolutionaries mentioned above - certainly not any contemporary Western atheist groups.
How is the insistence that one produce evidence for their claims dogmatic?
If I was going to use that term, which I admit is probably a bit excessive, it would probably be in relation to the a priori assertion that religious belief must stem from non-evidence and non-reasoning, something which I think is really an assumption that precedes any asking of questions in most cases.
In straightforwardly and sincerely speaking with religious people about the motivations behind their faith I seem to find that there is frequently quite a lot of rational thought and evidence behind it. They tend to reach different conclusions than I would based on the same evidence, and they often start from different assumptions than I would. But I believe that for me to label my own thinking as empirical or especially rational, and their thinking as not, would be waaaay overreaching on my part.
The way I see it, if you were really going to be strictly rational and empirical in your metaphysical musings there's just no way you would ever be able to get very far beyond solipsism. To even say that the world perceived by our senses exists for the sake of basing arguments of divine existence or non-existence on - that seems like an absurd leap of faith in and of itself to me. So I'm generally unimpressed with the whole host of assumptions I frequently observe other atheists making when they start engaging religious people in vicious arguments about what is true and what is not true and what the basis for one's beliefs is. Relative to any solipsist I regard the average religious person I've known and the average atheist I've known to be comparatively close in their beliefs.
posted by XMLicious at 3:17 PM on August 13, 2008
P.S. I should also note that I would acknowledge it's entirely possible to use a term "feminazi" pejoratively - to imply that a feminist principle which is actually equitable and reasonable is draconian or intolerant - but it is also possible to use that term descriptively for a feminism that really is intolerant in its nature. And in general, because of "Godwin's Law" type stuff as you mentioned earlier, I would probably use "militant feminist" to connote such a meaning rather than "feminazi".
posted by XMLicious at 3:26 PM on August 13, 2008
posted by XMLicious at 3:26 PM on August 13, 2008
Sorry. I'm not avoiding this thread, I just got swamped. My only net connection is at work, so duties trumped desires.
I'd love to continue this discussion at a later time. Perhaps if you email or MeFi-mail me we can keep the dialogue moving.
posted by mystyk at 6:06 AM on August 16, 2008
I'd love to continue this discussion at a later time. Perhaps if you email or MeFi-mail me we can keep the dialogue moving.
posted by mystyk at 6:06 AM on August 16, 2008
I doubt very much that atheism as a belief system is what really motivates most Communists
It's more a belief system rooted in government as a deity. Gods are no longer allowed. The State takes care of everything...uh...supposedly.
posted by ostranenie at 9:04 AM on August 21, 2008
It's more a belief system rooted in government as a deity. Gods are no longer allowed. The State takes care of everything...uh...supposedly.
posted by ostranenie at 9:04 AM on August 21, 2008
« Older Help me find some good movies that give you the... | Should I Kindle outside the U.S., or will I get... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Atheists seem more prone to intellectual arguments than direct action (protesting, letter-writing, terrorism, etc.,) anyhow.
...and Buddhists who advocate violence? WTF?
posted by ostranenie at 10:27 PM on August 9, 2008 [1 favorite]