My Thoughts On Militant Atheism

[JesusHChrist]

Crusaders for Darwin (whom we worship!), unite!

[Celestine]

Maybe his thoughts are actually on atheists ridiculing and mocking religion?

That is precisely it.

[Madness20]

In my opinion, militant atheism should mainly focus on the ideas of debunking religions' contradictions and lack of morality, but certainly not on an offensive or uneducated way, avoid lowering your level to possible ad-hominen argumentations, and maintain the conviction of skepticism upon religious claims. There's a hell of a lot prejudice against atheists and their morality, and i feel the best way to deliver the message is to calmly and gradually debunk claims, in a most moderated and rigorous way possible, for example i can say that Dawkins some years ago looked a lot more "revolted"/rebellious, which in some sense i feel was less productive in sensibilization about his message, than the moderate approach he seems to be taking now.
I feel that open debates and f.a.q.s' like atheist experience weekly show, are certainly one of the best ways of spread atheistic points of view.

[Mister Agenda]

I agree, Madness, but some people are compelled to mock and ridicule, and not that long ago, most of those were too afraid of the consequences to do so. I suppose the internet is very freeing that way. And I suppose that ridicule and mockery have their place in the Dark Art of rhetoric.

[JesusHChrist]

Found this shirt; might have to get me one:

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that being the "nice atheist" falls on one important point.

-The assumption that some group -x- with a hilariously non-factual opinion of atheists (or atheism) bases that opinion on anything that atheists have ever done, anywhere, at any time - up to and including ones own actions and demeanor -as an atheist-.

Seems like a strange assumption - given the strange comments regarding atheists and atheism that we end up fielding here on a constant basis.

[Holden Caulfield]

In my opinion, militant atheism should mainly focus on the ideas of debunking religions' contradictions and lack of morality, but certainly not on an offensive or uneducated way, avoid lowering your level to possible ad-hominen argumentations, and maintain the conviction of skepticism upon religious claims. There's a hell of a lot prejudice against atheists and their morality, and i feel the best way to deliver the message is to calmly and gradually debunk claims, in a most moderated and rigorous way possible, for example i can say that Dawkins some years ago looked a lot more "revolted"/rebellious, which in some sense i feel was less productive in sensibilization about his message, than the moderate approach he seems to be taking now.
I feel that open debates and f.a.q.s' like atheist experience weekly show, are certainly one of the best ways of spread atheistic points of view.

Yup I agree with this.

The best argument for atheism is education. Atheism doesn't need power of military strength unlike every religion that has ever come on this earth since it is simply supported by education. Atheism can easily convert most of the world by non-violent means. That's why "militant atheism" is just not necessary if it means violence. Strong atheist voices are needed though to keep going. However we need to maintain the high ground without resorting to violence for "militant atheism" to continue to mean a fight for education and skepticism.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Absolutely right, and yet you somehow hope to attack this illogical logic with evidence and science. Which faith can simply look past.

No, faith alone can't get past the science or evidence stage, how is that looking past it other than just being willfully ignorant. Therefore I was right that faith is illogical. Your conclusion is just utter nonsense, unless you mean look past science and evidence by just ignoring science and evidence, sure. You can also look past the Earth being round and just say it's flat based on faith, and voilà, same faith, same faulty logic. Having faith is like waving the white flag to actually learning about reality.

If you read more of what I was saying, I was saying you need to attack their faith, but to do so in a way as a person might offer a hand to a child that has lost their way.

I do use the gentle approach as well, and it doesn't work with many of the people I talk to, liberal believers to fundies. Maybe for someone sensible, the humble approach will work. However, for you to blanket Militant Atheism as a whole as a bad thing that does harm means you have quite the burden of proof; like some statistics or citations. Hell, even an actual valid argument, instead of this sophistry you've laid out.

"A noble man gives for a gentle approach what he would deny in a rough one." - quote of Omar from the Omar Series. Not sure if he actually said that though.

I think it's more noble to speak out against the harm of religion, loud and proud.

If you read on you would know that I am in full support of questioning religion, I just think it should be done in a much more respectful and mature manner.

Uh, no. I quoted your entire post unlike you who cherry-picked from my reply like a coward. All you did was whine about strong (militant) atheism.

[AtheistBuddha]

Militant Atheism does far more harm than good and for any who call themselves atheists out there who believe that religion causes major problems in the world you are severely deluded to the political aspect of your world.

Militant Atheists seek to insult and belittle religious people who find their religion above all else to be logical, if they did not find their belief to be logical they would not believe in it. This form of logic is not dependent on evidence but rather it is a matter of faith. Further more you will never be able to argue against someone and win that argument, you will never be able to prove something for someone but they must prove it for themselves. In essence every atheist who is trying to disprove religion is wasting their time when they should be focusing more on the political agenda of their dominions... at least if they truly wanted to stop mass suffering on a global scale. All it achieves to do is create friction in a society where we should be living as a family, together, and inseparable. Instead we divide ourselves, by ethnicity, by political ideologies, by wealth, and by spiritual beliefs. It is from this division that we are so easily taken advantage of, and people like Richard Dawkins only seek to make the rift between us and our family deeper even if they themselves do not realize it. People in time will prove themselves wrong, making this whole militant atheism campaign a waste of time and if not a distraction and a scapegoat for governments to use to avert the eyes of the public from their political dealings.

I am not sure if this message will reach any of you, atheists in my experience are no better than theists when it comes to rationality. All they managed to do was fit two pieces of a puzzle together in a puzzle that has over a million pieces. There is so much to learn in this life we can ill afford to waste time in it.

So please reconsider your stance on religion.

I agree that it is often pointless to try and convince the faithful that their beliefs are in the imaginary though, in my humble opinion, this is not all that militant or strident atheism does. To me, it seeks to focus on and stand up to political injustices perpetrated in the name of religious or even quasi-religious (North Korea's 'Dear Leader') beliefs. The seek to stand up for the secular ideal and I think that is important and it is the job of the secular mind to stand up and do his/her part to help stop the religious compulsion to drag us back into the Dark Ages. This video, in my humble opinion, does a good job of summing up the mission of militant atheism and so I will leave it here in the hopes that the late great Hitch can say it more eloquently than I.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7MtjJFelAE