The Myth of Militant Atheism

[laconicsax]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201102/the-myth-militant-atheism

Nine bullets fired from close range ended the life of Salman Taseer last month, making the Pakistani governor the latest high-profile victim of religious violence. Taseer had the audacity to publicly question Pakistan's blasphemy laws, and for this transgression he paid with his life.

Taseer joins a list of numerous other high-profile victims of militant religion, such as Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas abortion doctor killed by a devout Christian assassin in 2009, and Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker whose provocative movie about Islam resulted in his being brutally murdered in 2004.

With this background, it is especially puzzling that the American media and public still perpetuate the cliché of so-called "militant atheism." We hear the disparaging term "militant atheist" used frequently, the unquestioned assumption being that militant atheists are of course roaming the streets of America.

In fact, however, while millions of atheists are indeed walking our streets, it would be difficult to find even one who could accurately be described as militant. In all of American history, it is doubtful that any person has ever been killed in the name of atheism. In fact, it would be difficult to find evidence that any American has ever even been harmed in the name of atheism. It just does not happen, because the notion of "militant atheism" is entirely fantasy.

[AzDar]

1. I have never had an Atheist knock on my front door @ 8 a.m. on a Saturday to try and

get me to not believe. Just sayin'...

[MarkCharles]

2. Excellent points!

Very well put-together essay!

[Shadowflash]

3. yup.

If being vocal while defending yourself from having fairy tale rules and laws drempt up by illiterate, bronze age goat herders imposed on you, qualifies me as 'militant' then so be it. Though there is a difference between 'militant' and 'self defense'.

If you believe what you believe and leave me alone, then there are no issues. The world would be an infinitely better place if people just would mind their own business and quit thinking they are so much better than everybody else.

[msongs]

4. yet we have people right here on DU that say "atheism" is a religion, like the jesus cult nt

[MarkCharles]

7. And strangely enough, I think I'm correct in...

saying that all those who make that kind of a claim are NOT atheists, themselves.

Talk about a leap of faith or a stretch of logic...

[humblebum]

41. "like the jesus cult" and the Court nt

[cleanhippie]

57. Co-her-ence.

Your post lacks it.

[humblebum]

58. That darn truth thing sure does get in the way sometimes. nt

[cleanhippie]

61. Indeed it does.

Not sure what it is your posts are trying to convey, as they are incoherent.

[humblebum]

63. Yes, I would imagine that a comparison between two opinions is

a bit difficult for you to wrap your mind around. Nonetheless, both have stated that atheism is a religion.

[cleanhippie]

64. Only two posts in, and its broken record time.

Man, you just never get tired of repeating the same old shit, day in and day out, do you?

[humblebum]

65. More diversion and evasion. Typical. Next comes

your old standard: denial.

[cleanhippie]

69. Do you even know what it is your are trying to say?

[humblebum]

71. right on schedule.

[cleanhippie]

72. Hahahaha

You really don't know, do you?

[humblebum]

66. "Man, you just never get tired of repeating the same old shit, day in and day out, do you?"

Um? Don't look now, but you totally outclass me in that department. Absolutely vacuous blather.

[cleanhippie]

70. You seem to be suffering from an iron(y) deficiency.

[humblebum]

73. Nothin' like advertising it. nt

[cleanhippie]

74. And again, you just don't seem to see what you are doing to yourself.

[humblebum]

76. I am becoming increasingly aware of the great lengths you will continue on

with a real straw dog to avoid dealing with a difficult truth.

[laconicsax]

77. Having read this subthread, I'm not sure you ever made a coherent point let alone a difficult truth.

[cleanhippie]

78. Avoid? I'm DIRECTLY dealing with the fact that your posts are incoherent...

...and make no sense whatsoever. Avoiding? Only in your "where you see contradiction, I see confirmation" world.

[humblebum]

79. Many accusations, but absolutely no substance, nor rebuttal, nor

even a request for clarification. I merely made reference to someone besides "jesus cults" that considers atheism a religion. And yes, in this case "where you see contradiction, I see confirmation."

[cleanhippie]

80. Dude, you replied to Msongs post above with a completely incoherent post. THAT is what we are

talking about. YOUR in-co-her-ent post.

in·co·her·ent/
Adjective:

(of spoken or written language) Expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.
(of a person) Unable to speak intelligibly.

And then every following post you make incoherent statements that have absolutely fuck-all to do with anything regarding your original post.

There is a really easy way to rectify this....simply add some coherence to your posts and viola! Problem solved.

[humblebum]

81. Must have been that word "and" that confused you. I'll try to be clearer next time.nt

[cleanhippie]

82. If thats what you need to tell yourself, so be it. But yes, do try to be more coherent next time.

[humblebum]

83. Or maybe it was the term "the", because I do think

you are familiar with the term "court." But, maybe not. The incoherence is in your ability to understand, not my statement.

[cleanhippie]

84. Wow, one single post, and you are back to incoherence.

Old habits die hard, I guess.

[deacon_sephiroth]

102. I just got back from vacation

and I missed you bummy... I really did <3

[PassingFair]

5. Sounds like a good thread to post this:

[MarkCharles]

8. RECOMMENDING YOUR POST!!

Oh wait, I cannot recommend a single post, but if I could..

Four pictures worth a few thousand words.

[cbayer]

11. Or like this.

[PassingFair]

14. Yeah, wow. That dude on the right deserves to get choked and have his sign ripped up!

What EFFING nerve, wearing a costume in a parade!



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/pennsylvania-judge-musim-zombie-muhammad_n_1304764.html

[cbayer]

16. He certainly does not. But he is also most certainly not sitting quietly

in front of a keyboard dressed in a suit.

That was my point.

[PassingFair]

19. Yeah. That kind of militant shit pisses me off, too.

[cbayer]

20. I don't object to militancy at all, particularly when it is used by a group that has

been discriminated against.

What I don't understand is the need to deny or distance oneself from it.

The graphic you posted is cute, but not accurate. There are activist atheists some of whom are militant.

What's wrong with that? And why compare these activists to clowns?

[PassingFair]

23. You consider someone dressing up as Mohammed and the Pope as "militance"?

Really?

On edit:

I don't consider THIS guy a "militant"... Do you?

[cbayer]

26. Perhaps we define the term differently.

Back in the day, when I was marching in protests with signs and costumes, I considered myself and my colleagues pretty militant.

We were proud of it. We were making a statement and putting our cause out there in ways that were hard to ignore.

I guess I can understand rejection of the term if one defines it differently and in a negative way.

Your graphic does that, so I guess I can see where you are coming from. It defines religious militants in a very negative way, mocks agnostics and then portrays atheists as mild and cerebral.

My only point was to show that there are other kinds of atheists as well. I could also show militant Christians and Muslims who are fighting for their rights, but in a non-violent way.

So, we may just disagree because of different definitions.

[PassingFair]

27. These two jokers didn't look like they were "fighting" for anything.

No more than the John 3:16 guy.

If YOU define mockery as militancy, then we can agree on this.

But mockery is NOT militancy.

[Goblinmonger]

15. Keep beating that drum.

Makes you look great. Really. At least we know where you stand on the first amendment as it applies to atheists. Oh, I know, you'll say you think it was wrong if what the atheist says "actually happened," but you'll just keep tossing this out there as an example for things that are bad and wrong about atheists.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Hits for 'militant Christian' in 1 month of Google News: 0. 'Militant atheist': 41

('you would be saying that Queerty is promoting a militant Christian anti-white racist' in a disparaging reply to a use of 'militant atheist' in the comment section after a news article does not count).

'Militant catholic': 2 hits (1 about Santorum, 1 about the Catholic League). Militant Protestants: 0. Militant Mormons: 0.

'Militant atheists' include Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, someone wondering if they are one (in reaction to Baroness Warsi, Lord Carey (retired Archbishop of Canterbury), and 'Christian Voice' attacking secularists or atheists) in the UK, British people angry at the state sponsoring of faith schools, and Daniel Radcliffe (his own phrase).

'Militant secularism' gets 108 results. Not only did an official British government delegation travel to Rome to denounce it in front of the Pope, it also caused a gathering of Conservative MPs, and general outrage that an English council had been told it couldn't have official Christian prayers as part of its formal agenda (it was allowed to have them before the session started; they just couldn't be part of the session).

Are you really saying that 'militant' is just being applied to atheists in the way it's applied to Christians? Despite the appearance in the news of the Westboro Baptist Church, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Newt Gingrich, a Mormon prof calling African Americans a lower class of Mormon, Lord Carey himself, numerous Republicans introducing oppressive bills in state legislatures clearly based on their religious beliefs, and all the other religionists trying to force their views on the world? Even though there's plenty of use of 'militant Muslim', not once was it applied to Baroness Warsi, despite her attempt to insert religion further into the political life of Europe.

Really, one provocative pair in a Halloween parade is not the same thing. It's a complete red herring, in fact.

[cbayer]

29. If the term is being used in a derogatory fashion, then I agree that there is reason

to reject it.

The only reason I posted the image was to counter the image of a "militant" or activist atheist sitting peacefully at a keyboard.

If it is objectionable to atheists to be called militant, so be it. I won't use it.

Is activist ok?

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. I think activist is a lot better

The problem with 'militant' is its association with organised violence. It's what would make a War On <something>, rather than speaking out, or reasonable opposition.

[PassingFair]

31. You better stay away from DC on March 24th.

Lots of "militants" coming out from behind their peaceful keyboards.

http://www.reasonrally.org/

Better turn off all the lights and keep quiet!

We don't know how VIOLENT these militant atheists will get when they're away from their keyboards!

[cbayer]

32. You misunderstand where I am coming from, but that's ok

[PassingFair]

33. I understand where you're coming from, all right.

And although you did not make the suggestion to ME, I agree
that "activists" is a more appropriate description of the fellows in
the parade.

And PERHAPS for the thousands who will be lucky enough to
make it to DC for the rally.

I hope you will put your "militant atheist" meme to rest now.

[LeftishBrit]

56. 'Activist' is fine

In fact, I would never have bothered about 'militant atheist' in the past. My problem with the phrase is the way it gets used by people who want to portray atheism as politically dangerous:

i.e.:

(1) Some atheists are fiery and outspoken, and therefore may get called 'militant atheists'.

(2) There was a 'League of Militant Atheists' in the Soviet Union, which (like many other organizations) served the cause of Stalinism and engaged in violence toward religious people.

(3) Therefore anyone who is described as a 'militant atheist' is a supporter of violence toward religious people, and/or more generally similar to a Stalinist.

(4) Therefore outspoken atheists; or those who campaign for the rights of atheists; or possibly all atheists; are politically dangerous.


So long as people do not portray atheism or secularism as politically dangerous, I don't really mind what terms they use.

[cbayer]

62. Thanks for that information, particularly the historical and international background.

I like activist as well and am glad there is a term that can be used that is not pejorative.

[rug]

6. This year-old article is pounding a strawman.

The term militant doesn't require bullets.

militant[mil-i-tuhnt]?/ˈmɪlɪtənt adjective
1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2. engaged in warfare; fighting.

Synonyms
1. belligerent, combative, contentious. See fanatic.

World English Dictionary
militant (ˈmɪlɪtənt)
— adj
1. aggressive or vigorous, esp in the support of a cause: a militant protest
2. warring; engaged in warfare
— n
3. a militant person

[C15: from Latin mīlitāre to be a soldier, from mīles soldier]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant

And he is hardly an objective observer.

Dave Niose is an attorney, activist, and president of the Washington-based American Humanist Association. His book, Nonbeliever Nation, is schedule for release in July 2012 by Palgrave Macmillan.

Author of
Our Humanity, Naturally
Our Humanity, Naturally presents issues of life, society, and philosophy from the naturalistic standpoint of Humanism. A progressive philosophy of positive values without dogma and superstition, Humanism is becoming more prevalent among those concerned about anti-intellectual and dysfunctional trends in modern society. Our Humanity, Naturally applies Humanist concepts to a wide array of personal and social issues, demonstrating that there are pragmatic answers to many of the big (and little) challenges of contemporary life.

Books by David Niose
Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americansby David Niose
Palgrave Macmillan

http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/david-niose

[MarkCharles]

9. What would qualify a religious believer to be...

"objective" about atheism?

What is the nature of "objectivity", on the topic of belief and non-belief in a supernatural power?

I would contend that non-belief would be more "objective" with regard to any number and variety of the literally thousands of religions practiced on the planet.

Is it possible for believers, by their very status as believers, to be "objective" about their beliefs?
If so, how would they do that?

What is the "straw man" you see in this article?

What are the rules that prohibit someone from posting an article that is not recent?
I seem to recall some post here recently about their own book published in the 1980s. Do we have rules about that?

[rug]

10. The fact remains: this year-old article is pushing its own agenda through a strawman.

[dmallind]

12. You mean like believers who find a dictionary that lists strong atheism as #1

And then cut and paste that as "proof" that atheism necessarily involves an active belief in the absence of gods? That kind of strawman?

The term "militant" does not require bullets, admittedly. However given that "militant atheism" seems to crop up when keyboards and photoshop are used, surely it is undeniably LESS militant than the theistic kind, where bombs and bullets are frequently found - in addition to keyboards?

I'll be perfectly frank. There is a way in which atheists can be and are militant. It's rare, but it could be said when atheists act not in self-defense but unprovoked, to cause difficulty for religious people to be religious. All too often the latter think it's a serious difficulty to be slightly curtailed in their unchecked imposition of their beliefs onto others, but I don't mean that. There is absolutely no possibility of atheism becoming militant in resisting oppression or hegemony. What I mean is the very rare case where atheists restrict the ability of religious people to behave harmlessly and subjectively amongst themselves. For example restrictions on saying "Merry Christmas" ONLY when they actually are restrictions, not simply a choice to say something else, and ONLY when they are imposed by atheists, would meet this bar. Similarly so would restrictions on religious jewelry or other symbols that again are applied ONLY to religious pieces and ONLY by atheists. Like I said, very rare.

Why does the age of the article bother yoi so? Has the landscape of militant theism or atheism changed significantly in a year or is every reflection on religion's role in the world defunct after a twelvemonth?

[rug]

17. I can't make sense of your first sentence.

Are you objecting to a dictionary definition?

If you're complaining about photoshop, glance at the graphic posted elsewhere in this thread.

I don't know what you're talking about with Merry Christmas and religious jewelry.

For what it's worth, I think militance in promoting a cause is admirable, indeed necessary. What I find amusing is the OP's attempt to simultaneously disapprove of militance and then to deny it's being used in defense of atheism.

As to the age of the article, that usually occurs when someone dredges up old articles to promote flamewars.

[dmallind]

21. It's simple Englisj. At what point does it become incomprehensible fot you?

[rug]

24. You lost me at Englisj.

[dmallind]

37. I can't type worth shit. You can't draw inferences worth shit apparently.

Given the two options to live with, I'd choose the former.

[Goblinmonger]

88. That's the game you want to play?

Deal.

[rug]

90. .

[MarkCharles]

13. So, because atheists don't accuse themselves but others accuse..

them of being "militant", that's just fine because the accuser can bend the meaning of "militant" to suit his/her own needs, thanks to the English language.

And when one of the atheists writes an essay and objects to that rather inaccurate way of being described, that must be a NON objective militant atheist "pushing his own agenda", to use your words.

Okay, I got it now. But my question remains.

Who can be "objective" when it comes to atheism and/or religion?

[rug]

18. I'm sorry the use of a dictionary offends you.

I'll try to avoid that next time.

[MarkCharles]

22. Because I volunteer for the Democratic Party, and...

because I speak out about people I want to get elected, and because I write letters to the editor of my local paper in strong support of Democratic candidates and issues, and argue with Republican talking points..

Does that make me a

"MILITANT" Democrat?

See how foolish the semantic argument you are making is when you attempt to apply it to anything OTHER THAN atheism? How silly then that you refuse to answer questions directly, when you engage in needless personal insult and ridicule and when you accuse OTHERS of not being "objective".

[rug]

25. I would hope so. The stakes are too high to be tepid.

[2ndAmForComputers]

59. So, being a militant Democrat is a good thing because being a Democrat is a good thing.

Reasonable enough.

Conversely, being a militant atheist...

Yeah, I see why people deride being a "militant atheist" as a bad thing.

[rug]

67. I surprised the term is seen as a pejorative.

[2ndAmForComputers]

68. Best laugh of the week.

[Goblinmonger]

89. "I surprised"? Forget your be verb? n/t

[rug]

91. No, I forgot the auxiliary, am.

[Goblinmonger]

97. Didn't want to use big words to confuse you.

"am" is just a form of the verb "to be." "Be verbs," "auxiliary verbs"--all the same thing.

[rug]

98. There's one less worry you have.

But while I have your attention, what exactly is the pluperfect?

[Goblinmonger]

99. Wow, you're jumping right in there

Another name for past perfect. So a combination of past tense and the perfect aspect which means that the past event is still relevant. So something like "He had thought his life sucked until recent events showed him what sucking was really like."

[rug]

100. Ah, thank you.

So it's simply another term. It's bothered me for years, every time I saw it mentioned. ThoughtI has missed something.

Thanks.

[Goblinmonger]

103. Grammar brings us all together.

On that note, do you watch Big Bang Theory? The episode last week made reference to the subjunctive mood. All kinds of nerds can watch that show, not just the science ones.

[rug]

104. I just started catching some episodes.

My sons have been watching for a while. The ones I've seen have been devastatingly funny. I haven't sorted out who's who yet but the skinny guy who never smiles, the nerdiest, is my favorite. I didn't see last week's but I can imagine it.

[laconicsax]

34. I'll expect you to show up the next time millenia-old issues and events are discussed here.

Oh, and straw man it is not. The threshold for militancy isn't met by atheists sitting behind keyboards or buying ad space on buses.

[MarkCharles]

35. But look look look at how threatened those religious...

believers are!!!!!!!!!!!!

They just don't get it. They think it's fine for them to propagate their fairy tales, and when someone demands more evidence for the veracity of their fairy tale, they accuse atheists of militancy. while they have their ally on the single dollar bill and every other script they pay their bills with.
Oh GEE.. atheists are SO F*CKN


"MILITANT"

[laconicsax]

36. Forget demands.

Asking, "how do you know what you claim to know" is the making of a strident attack on religion by the most militant of atheists.

[rug]

38. A red herring is not a defense to a strawnan.

Nor does your threshold trump a definition.

If you want to start a flamewar, post something that's either current or accurate.

[laconicsax]

39. Since I'm not here to start a flame war, I'll continue to post relevant pieces.

I'll leave the endless baiting to you. You've spent so long carving out that niche for yourself, it'd be inconsiderate of me to try to squeeze you out.

[rug]

40. Ok, try to keep the"relevance" under six months.

[laconicsax]

42. LOL!

In a group which regularly discusses centuries-old books, people, and philosophies, try to avoid posting things more than six months old.

[rug]

43. Ah, I missed Niose's insights into centuries-old books, people, and philosophies

Flamebait. Disingenuous flamebait.

[laconicsax]

44. Well, at least we have you to single-handedly determine what is and isn't allowable here.

The group hosts should really show some gratitude. At the very least you should get a pizza party.

[rug]

45. You post it. I'll comment.

It's still flamebait.

Maybe you can order a pizza by pm.

[laconicsax]

46. Ridiculous

A blog post explaining why the pejorative "militant atheist" is bullshit is no more flamebait than a post explaining that not all Christians are Fundamentalist wackaloons.

I know that Domino's lets you order online. I prefer to avoid them, but if it's the only good option, they'll have to be considered. Why don't you PM me your home address? I'll see what the options are for finding someone to cater a party for you and forward on my suggestion to the group hosts.

[rug]

47. Come, laconicsax, speak plainiy.

What is it you're suggesting?

[laconicsax]

48. If you're reading something into my posts, it isn't there by my design.

I learned a long time ago that when discussing things on the Internet, it's best to say exactly what you mean because the capacity for misinterpretation is so high. As a result, I try to say exactly what I mean at all times. It may make for boring prose, but tends to cut down on the confusion about what I'm getting at.

[rug]

49. I see. You are offering to buy me a pizza from Domino's.

That's very kind of you.

[laconicsax]

50. Close enough, I suppose.

I try to avoid Domino's whenever possible (as it's owned by a RW nutter) and I think the group hosts should be pay for the party since they're the ones who should be grateful for your efforts to do their job for them.

[rug]

51. You suggested Domino's.

I admire the finesse with which you backpedal.

[laconicsax]

52. You may recall that I said, "I prefer to avoid them"

Backpedal from what?

[rug]

53. From this:

"At the very least you should get a pizza party."

Coyness ill suits you.

[laconicsax]

54. Oh, I see. You thought I meant you should be TS'd.

There are a few reasons why that's obviously not what I meant.

-I continued to talk about literal pizza.
-"Pizza," "granite," and "tombstone" are defunct terms for banning and have been for a few months now.
-Group hosts can't ban DUers.

So it's quite a stretch to read a suggestion that the group hosts throw you a pizza party as a desire for you to be banned from the site.

[MarkCharles]

60. Oh the irony of a six month rule

Not only would links to the Bible, or the Quran be off limits...

With a rule like that, discussion of writings of Thomas Jefferson or Adams about the need for a separation between church and state would be "too old" to quote or link to.

[LeftishBrit]

55. To be flippant...

wouldn't it be impossible to keep the relevance in a discussion of religion under six months?

Most modifications and interpretations of the main religions, let alone the holy books themselves, are far older than that.

And since people may not have come across some of the relevant articles at the time, surely they should have the right to post them, unless something major has changed in the intervening time - this is hardly the 'latest breaking news' forum.

However, if the forum hosts want to have a time limit for the date of publication of an article posted, I am happy to go along with it, but it should be made an explicit rule, as it is, for example, on LBN or the I/P forum.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. Militant atheist is misused to refer to any atheist who publicly discusses their atheism.

Publish a book about atheism, you're a militant atheist. Publicly defend atheistic beliefs, join the atheist army.

People publicly proclaim their theistic beliefs all the time, and at least as vigorously as the alleged militant atheists of the New Atheists, but they are not Militant Theists. Why is that?

[humblebum]

85. "Publicly defend atheistic beliefs" - so are you saying that

atheism is indeed a belief system, or if not, then what are "atheistic beliefs?"

[cleanhippie]

86. Now this is a coherent post. Well done.

I too, am interested to hear the answer to your question. Should prove to be interesting.

[humblebum]

87. Certainly no less coherent than any other post. The incoherence lies in your ability

to understand. As a matter of fact, this entire thread flies in the face of objective reality when applied to the existence of "militant' atheists. The term militant does not necessarily imply violence or physical aggression, although atheists have been involved, as such.

"the current meaning of militant does not usually refer to a registered soldier: it can be anyone who subscribes to the idea of using vigorous, sometimes extreme, activity to achieve an objective, usually political. For example, a "militant [political] activist" would be expected to be more confrontational and aggressive than an activist not described as militant.

Militance may or may not include physical violence, armed combat, terrorism, and the like."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant

[cleanhippie]

92. Man, even when I agree with you, you feel the need to go off on a tangent of incoherence.

Fuck it.

[humblebum]

93. Maybe it's because I think your definition of "coherence" is conditional and subjective,

therefore, irrelevant to anything I post.

[cleanhippie]

94. Yeah, you keep "thinking" whatever you want.

Have a nice day.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. most of us believe in evidence based reasoning

Skepticism is more of a process for thinking about the world rather than a belief system. And as such, since what we think we know about the world cannot be proved, but only disproved, and even what we are reasonably sure of now can become less substantiated over time, to claim that this way of thinking rises to the level of the sort of rigid belief systems found in religions is ridiculous.

[humblebum]

96. It is either a belief system or it is not, rigidly structured or not.

Last edited Sun Mar 4, 2012, 05:56 PM - Edit history (1)

What you have just described to me, is a way to view and perceive the physical world. Therefore a worldview, but not the only one. Also, your definition of evidence, i.e. "evidence based reasoning", is conditional.

Your "evidence" is objective and empirical, which is totally acceptable and necessary to Science. BUT, there is also subjective or circumstantial evidence, which is regularly utilized by religion and many other disciplines. And, that is why I consider the atheistic POV to be far too narrow in its focus to give much attention to.

[rexcat]

105. WIth your "reasoning" and "logic"...

you must believe in Bigfoot and other mythical creatures since there is subjective and circumstantial evidence for them and proof is not required, just faith.

I believe in the physical world because there is evidence for it. I am not going to take someone's opinion that there is a god based on faith (requiring no evidence). To the atheist that is absurd.

As far as Christianity (or any religion) goes some take the entire holy texts literally, some pick and choose what they take as literal and others take it as an allegory. There is no consensus and it is just opinion which you and anyone else is entitled too but when it conflicts with an atheist's sensibilities expect some feedback.

Now back to the topic of "militant," I would say that you use the term as a pejorative. I base this on reading more than a few posts by you. If that is the case no big deal but at least be honest about it.

[deacon_sephiroth]

101. correct and by this definition I have always volunteered to carry the title.

I don't know why people shy away from the term personally. I understand it's usage, both derogitory and otherwise and I've always proudly colunteered to wear that label. I'm not just an Atheist, and not just in the military, I'm a militant Atheist.

I am:
1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause

Now, on the other hand is it bullshit that ONLY atheists get this label when it so aptly applies to so many theists, YES... YES IT IS.