My Thoughts On Militant Atheism

[Celestine]

The idea that I ought to approach the faithful as though they were children is absurd and incredibly offensive. How dare you.

I think I'll continue to treat them as people who put their big boy pants on and stepped into the ring. You simply cannot "attack someones faith" in a manner that -could not- be deemed as offensive or disrespectful -by somebody-, because faith is a very personal thing. They have alot invested. For my part, rather than coddling these people and sugarcoating every goddamned thing I have to say as though they would wilt in the presence of resistance, I give em both barrels. They give me both barrels as well. That's okay. A war of words is preferable to any other type. I don't even have the foggiest idea of what would or would not offend any particular religious persons sensibilities because A: I've never been religious so I don't know where to begin, and B: they very often laugh at the things I would imagine to be offensive but take offense to the things I thought to be innocuous (which is nice, because even when I'm being offensive, I try to get some giggles in: results vary, as they always do when it comes to humor).

While I doubt that I would be able to argue someone out of something they didn't argue themselves into, if I can so much as reduce their confidence in the notion that their beliefs ought to have weight and authority as fact that's gg to me. Does logic or science or evidence have this effect? Yes, it most certainly does, and it isn't as though faith is blind to the power of these things (que the creatards and "convinced in christ through reason" types). I don't require anything else, I'm not expecting anything else, I'm not even hoping for anything else. I know better. It's not as though atheism or skepticism is new, or that there haven't always been reasons to question these things. Faith plugged right alongside non-faith for all of this time and it doesn't seem to have disappeared simply because a solid argument against any particular faith exists or actually predated the faith-which is often the case. I'm not even interested in "proving them wrong" to be truthful, as whether or not there are fairies pulling strings is irrelevant to my particular brand of "militant atheism"- and in many ways the existence of those fairies would actually help to make -my- argument for me.

The only things I ever bother to "prove wrong" are issues of fact and evidence, amusingly. Global floods, intelligent design, etc. The rest I simply look to demonstrate to be hideous, not wrong, hideous. But most often, I just comment on how poorly thought out the various articles of the worlds disparate faiths are - sure, in a colorful and often very abrasive way - but, that's just who I am. So, maybe I'm just a mean, mean man...but who cares, are the contents of my arguments in error? Whether or not I'm a mean person, similar to whether or not you're a hypocrite - doesn't really speak to that, now does it? I'd rather be the dick with a solid argument than the really nice guy -shitting in peoples earholes-

Is that understandable?

That was an example, I did not say treat them as a child, I said to be gentle with them. The thought that their religion could be wrong is going to be a scary topic for them when an animal is scared is it not better to make yourself not seem like a threat? If a scared animal sees you as a threat they are either going to run away or attack you. Say for example this animal is a cat, it is a injured, hungry, and scared. Like the religious person they will be injured if they faith is unhinged and they will become scared or hateful, but they will also be hungry for an answer. Should you then not offer this cat a bowl of milk? Let it get your scent and then comfort it? To the religious person the bowl of milk would be answers, your scent would be trust, and comforting them would be embracing them.

If the cat sees you as a threat however it will scratch/bite you, or try to run away. Seeing as how it is injured though it may not be able to do so, and so you are left with the scratching and the biting.

It is most likely not the content of your argument that is in error, but the way you present it.

How many times have I judged and entire group by the comments/actions of a few?

As little as possible, though I admit I have slipped.

I try to judge people by their merits, not by the groups they happen to be associated with.

Except YECS - they're deliberately ignorant.



But, once again, I will state that backing down in the face of extremism is just another sort of appeasement. They see your weakness and demand more.

Extremism should not be tolerated no, but unless they actually harm anyone though then all we should/can do is talk to them in a peaceful manner. As I have stated before, both sides are not going to act well to aggression or hostility, therefore one side should take the initiative to be the peacemaker so that actual dialogue can be carried out.

If you read the Quran and the Hadiths perhaps you would find ways to counter their actions in their own religion? While at the same time, you could come to a deeper understanding of them.

Because it's not just a belief you hold; if it were you'd've started a less confrontational thread, more like what Bibliofagus suggested.

Instead, you appear to actually think you have the right to come onto a forum and tell others that they should believe as you believe, which is just as bad as what theists do.

If you had wanted to have a discussion about what the best method is to talk to theists, you wouldn't have made all the unjustified assumptions about the members of this forum that you did in your original post (which alienated almost everyone) and you would have outlined you reasons for thinking militancy is not an effective method. In other words, you would have engaged in reasoned argumentation, not simply flung insults at us and then fall back behind you confirmation bias shield. But no, you bitched and moaned about how your good atheist name is spoiled by all the mean, militant atheists like us and how we're all too thick-skulled to even consider what you had to say.

I'm beginning to conclude that you're problem with militancy is that you can't handle it when it's given back at you. You don't seem to have a problem dishing it out (reference your OP), but when you get a dose thrown back in your face you whine about why people are insulting you.

Now do you see what we can learn when we calmly discuss things with others? I have not tried this 'debating' for years. I did not realize at the time that I was being offensive, like rhythm, I thought I was only being 'innocuous'

Yes you are right, I should have broached this topic in a friendlier manner but I am relearning much of how I have engaged with people. You will notice however that while I was being subject to heavy ridicule and insults that I for the most part did not respond in the same way. Instead I have asked you why you have responded in such a fashion, and now I know that I myself was in part to blame.

So I apologize for the crassness of my opening post.

They very often laugh at the things I would imagine to be offensive but take offense to the things I thought to be innocuous