Quiet Atheist vs Militant Atheist

[Aoi Magi]

define "militant atheist"

[Jericho]

I know this source isn't the best, but Urban Dictionary says the following:

"A militant atheist is one who is hostile towards religion. They differ from moderate atheists because they have the desire to propagate atheism and also hold religion to be harmful. Militant atheism was an integral part of the French Revolution, Soviet Union, Cultural Revolution, and is expresses itself today in the ideas of the New Atheist authors."

[AFTT47]

I grew up exposed to several religions and also found Charles Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Sam Harris (End of Faith). There are many atheists that don't speak up around their religious friends so they don't offend them. After all, there is freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion in the USA. I am somewhat torn because some of the nicest people I know are Christians that volunteer, help the homeless, etc. However, most of the smartest people I know are atheists. I think it is the radical people in any religion or political group that are harmful. Ultra conservative Republicans, ultra liberal democrats, radical Islam, etc. But I wonder if militant atheists are bad or religion is worse. It seems as though young people are more secular than previous generations and atheists are on the rise. It will be interesting to see how things progress with the Vatican, Radical Islam, and Israel in this century.

Are you a quiet, respectful atheist, or a militant atheist out to show people how wrong and harmful religion is?

Both positions are valid. You don't say where you are from although you allude it is from the USA. We are both free to vent our opinions here.

I personally live in the USA and am not shy about my atheism. I don't feel a need to push it on anyone else but I DO feel a need to make my viewpoint known. How else is a free society to grow unless everyone speaks their mind?

You speak of quiet, respectful atheists. What about quiet, respectful Christians? Should one of us be more 'quiet and respectful' than the other? If so, why?

[Alex K]

Charles Dawkins is the best, although, Alfred Russell Crowe is sooo hot. Sure, Charles has a better voice, but if I want to hear good singer, there's always B. O. Wilson

[z7z]

Charles Dawkins is the best, although, Alfred Russell Crowe is sooo hot. Sure, Charles has a better voice, but if I want to hear good singer, there's always B. O. Wilson

Haha okay I was thinking Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins and just combined them. 

[Alex K]

I'm really not fond of the monicker "militant atheist", because it is usually a double standard: the same amount of conviction on the theist side would simply be called "Christian" or "moderate muslim". Yet, even what people usually call "militant atheists" are by and large more open, anti-discrimination than your run off the mill theist.

I still checked the box "militant" because I loathe it when people that an atheist who dares to try and convince others of his or her position is "just as bad as the religious zealots", and when they maintain that even arguing against religious belief is somehow immoral and highly impolite. I encounter it so often and I'm tired of it. I do however often move among believers, and I do not usually confront them about their religious beliefs in everyday life, unless there is a concrete reason.

[Red Economist]

Voted Militant Atheist. But I would define militancy in terms of my ideas, rather than in aggression behind them. I gain nothing from insiting people are wrong, but I gain alot talking to people I disagree with.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I voted militant, and by that I mean vocal and seeking change.

I would hope that is acceptable for the poll, otherwise it's a false dichotomy presenting only atheists who say next to nothing and atheists who do violent stuff.

[LastPoet]

[Edwardo Piet]

I was militant for about 4 years, been increasingly more quiet for the last 3. Haven't been here for ages though.