My Thoughts On Militant Atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

[The Valkyrie]

So, someone has been insulted by someone else in the past and that gives them the right to get in MY face before they know me and I'm the one who is supposed to back away?

No!

That's their failing, not mine. If they judge all people by some experience they've had in the past then there's something wrong with them.

And I should forgive them if they can't defend their position when they're backed into a corner and resort to insults? No. Once again, the weakness is theirs and I will respond in kind.

Are we supposed to surrender when faced with militant religion/religiosity?

Screw that. It's been tried and doesn't work. It just makes them bolder.

And how many times have you judged an entire group based on your interactions with a few?

You DO NOT bow to militancy. There are only so many cheek you have to turn before the pricks try to kick you in the arse cheeks.

And you think moderate muslims and christians don't have the same view as this?

The point is that judging a group based on the actions of a few is something that we as humans unfortunately do. It is then in the best interest of those who are mature and wise enough to distinguish the group from the individual, and discover the reason behind why a person might be hostile to us. In this way you and the other person can reflect on their interactions and find that it might not be the best way to approaching each other.

If in a discussion one person makes the mistake of making an insult and you were to insult them back this would more than likely lead to more insults being tossed and the whole discussion would bear no fruit for either person. Yet if you were the one to check them and ask them why they are insulting you, they would at least realize their error.

Such as I asked kitanetos why he/she was insulting me, I learned that my comments which I did not actual think were insulting anyone did have some things that could be viewed as insulting even if I myself did not realize it or for that matter intend 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.

[FatAndFaithless]

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, 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.

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.

This. I remember a quote from Penn Jillette that went something like: "Treating theists like children, or putting on kid gloves, or faking 'tolerance' for their beliefs is immensely condescending. You don't have discussions by lying about how you feel. Acting like there's a "right" way to talk to theists is like talking about "how to pick up girls". It doesn't show respect for your opponent's position if you think you have to treat them like a child."

In other words, fuck you I disagree.

[Tonus]

I'm hardly even militant about my militancy.

[Ryantology]

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.

Militant believers don't seek to insult and belittle others. They seek to annihilate them.

I don't think there are very many actual 'militant' atheists in existence, and I've certainly never known any. Being outspoken and even obnoxious isn't militancy by itself. There needs to be at least the implied threat of violence, and you don't often encounter atheists encouraging violence against believers. I think even the most anti-theist of us would co-exist amongst believers if they didn't try so hard to dominate everybody else.

[JesusHChrist]

Whether Celestine is male or female is really beside the point of this whole thread. I'd personally be more interesting to find out whether or not he is actually a theist troll in disguise, or whether he just has stupid arguments for his stance against militant atheism. He claimed to be a male, so until he states otherwise I'll use male pronouns

Just me being silly...

If he said he was a she, I would have said she was a he.

All part of the JHC-comedy experience. Confusion! Mystery! Gender mixups! And lets not forget God-mocking! Lots and lots of it.

[Clueless Morgan]

You disingenuous cunt. You are no more an atheist than Islam is the religion of peace.

And why is that Chas? I am interested to know why you think this... and why you must insult me for the belief I hold on how others should be approached.

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.

Just me being silly...

If he said he was a she, I would have said she was a he.

All part of the JHC-comedy experience. Confusion! Mystery! Gender mixups! And lets not forget God-mocking! Lots and lots of it.

My humor radar is failing me... Add some smileys or something to your posts so I know you're joking! :p

[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

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

You can fuck right off. Theists are not animals. They're humans with bad ideas, and I'll address them as humans, not 'an injured animal' or a child that I need special tactics to converse with. This idea is sickening.

[The Grand Nudger]

That was an example, I did not say treat them as a child, I said to be gentle with them.

As though they were "a child who had lost their way" - was the phrase you turned, iirc. That's okay...you know what, adults do act like children sometimes and if you think that you should treat them thusly that's aight -with me-. You don't have to backpedal in our conversations, save that for some theist you invariably insult.

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.

-now, not just children, but scared animals......I'm actually starting to like you a whole hell of alot...lol. Please, tell me more about not insulting religious people.

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.

I'm not really certain that treating a human being like a cat is going to be all that fruitful...and to be honest, I don't have much luck with cats to begin with. They either like me or they don;t - and I don;t really care - after all, they're cats. I put the food in the bowl, after that -whether or not they starve is their own damned business. If they scratch me, well....into the blender they go - the other cats are hungry.

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

I'm not concerned with my presentation beyond it's contents. That's a matter of opinion, and like assholes, we all have them. Some of us go beyond that of course, into the territory of actually -being one-.