Quiet Atheist vs Militant Atheist

[robvalue]

I think militant atheists are ones who yell at everyone they see, "There is no God". Including their own children.

Oh wait, no that's just the typical strawman atheist.

[Pyrrho]

I think militant atheists are ones who yell at everyone they see, "There is no God". Including their own children.

Oh wait, no that's just the typical strawman atheist.

And yet, that is pretty much what the average, ordinary Christian does (except saying that there is a god, and possibly without actually yelling), at least in the U.S.  Mentioning a god with great frequency, to pretty much everyone, is what a lot of ordinary Christians do in the U.S.  For those outside the U.S., just listen to a few politician's speeches (if you can stomach them), and notice the frequency with which references are made to a god.  We also have "In God We Trust" on our money, which also shows how deeply this sort of thing goes in the U.S.

The standards for being a "militant" atheist are much less than the standards for being a "militant" religionist.  To be a "militant" atheist, you just have to behave the way an ordinary religionist behaves.

[Jenny A]

The standards for being a "militant" atheist are much less than the standards for being a "militant" religionist.  To be a "militant" atheist, you just have to behave the way an ordinary religionist behaves.

^ This ^

[FatAndFaithless]

Is wearing a t-shirt with a funny quote about god from DeGrasse Tyson or Ricky Gervais or Hitchens on it considered 'militant'? Because I see countless church/jesus/christianity shirts all over the place in Houston. Are those people 'militant' Christians?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Still not really sure what a militant atheist is, to be honest. A+?

I think of militant atheists as those who evangelize their lack of belief.

[z7z]

For me, quiet atheist = let's all coexist, believe whatever you want. militant atheist = outspoken, abolish all religion, they are all bad.

[Jenny A]

For me, quiet atheist = let's all coexist, believe whatever you want. militant atheist = outspoken, abolish all religion, they are all bad.

There is an in between which is where I am.  All religions are stupid, but you have to see the stupidity by persuasion.  So no we don't abolish religion, we just reserve the right to criticize it.  And we don't set aside some respectful distance in which we don't say that's crazy, just because it happens to be a religious belief.

[robvalue]

(This is my opinion on stuff)

My compromise is all religions are stupid and potentially dangerous, let's neuter them.

It would be literally impossible to abolish all religion, since anyone can come up with a religion anytime (and even not tell anyone about it!) The most you could do is abolish organised religion, and I wouldn't advocate that. I'd say instead to remove their special treatment and try to minimise the harm they do. Anywhere where money is being taken in, unless they apply successfully for charitable status, should be taxed as a regular business. I don't like exceptions for intangible products.

In my opinion, taxing churches isn't violating "state/church separation", it's enforcing the laws of taxation that apply to everywhere money is being taken in. Crime can still happen in a church. Being allowed to keep their books secret is also bollocks. This is again standard law, in my opinion. Religion does not require the exchange of money in order to be practiced. It also does not require churches/other buildings, so if you want to maintain them as part of your religion and pay people to work in them, it's become a business. If it's actually a charity, then apply for charitable status.

[Cephus]

(This is my opinion on stuff)

My compromise is all religions are stupid and potentially dangerous, let's neuter them.

It would be literally impossible to abolish all religion, since anyone can come up with a religion anytime (and even not tell anyone about it!) The most you could do is abolish organised religion, and I wouldn't advocate that. I'd say instead to remove their special treatment and try to minimise the harm they do. Anywhere where money is being taken in, unless they apply successfully for charitable status, should be taxed as a regular business. I don't like exceptions for intangible products.

In my opinion, taxing churches isn't violating "state/church separation", it's enforcing the laws of taxation that apply to everywhere money is being taken in. Crime can still happen in a church. Being allowed to keep their books secret is also bollocks. This is again standard law, in my opinion. Religion does not require the exchange of money in order to be practiced. It also does not require churches/other buildings, so if you want to maintain them as part of your religion and pay people to work in them, it's become a business. If it's actually a charity, then apply for charitable status.

In the western world, we already have neutered religion.  It isn't that Christianity is any better than Islam, it's that secular society has told Christians that they can't act that way and has forced them to play nice with others.  If given the chance, there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who would be out there doing everything ISIS is doing, maybe even worse.  It wasn't religion that changed in the west, it was secularism.  That needs to happen in the Middle East too.  It's time for them to grow up.

[abaris]

it's that secular society has told Christians that they can't act that way and has forced them to play nice with others.

Told is to weak a word. Society and legislation put some restraints on radical christians to prevent them from acting on their vile impulses. Every now and then some of them break free and the results are always ugly and usually leave some bodies in the streets.

The only difference between radical Islam and radical christianity is that thin layer of a still functioning society.