Religion
Related: About this forumMilitant Atheism?
When you hear the term 'militant atheist' what do you think of? An outspoken atheist. Atheists critical, maybe vehemently critical, of religion. It could be the type of atheist who can't stand to see religion in the public sphere, working to have the wall of separation between church and state bolstered. It might be an atheist who seeks to erode the influence of, and the assumed respect for, religion. They may be passionate about these issues. They might even be an asshole about it.
When you hear the term 'militant Christian' what do you think of? Pro-lifers bombing abortion clinics or shooting doctors who perform abortions. Those who believe that the US Armed Forces are an apparatus to fight other religions and as a mechanism to convert our 'enemies.' Nationalistic Christianity which seeks to impose Christianity on others via force, threat of force, or via the force of the state.
--snip--
The term 'militant atheist' is a stunt word, loaded with false connotations to evoke a visceral, negative reaction. It is meant to invoke fear and disdain for atheists by comparing them with the worst of the religious. It is a lie. Do not accept the falsity that someone who criticizes religion and faith and the consequences of these via debate, writing, multimedia, etc. as 'militant.' Don't accept the falsity that someone who advocates for a reasoned ethical behavior over outdated and false scriptural adherenceno matter how passionateis 'militant.' This is propaganda. It is a diversion from having to actually defend the position in question, it is disingenuous and intellectual cowardice.
--snip--
When that happens it is a sure sign that the group accused is getting under the skin of the dominant group. It means whatever the mischaracterized group is doing, the majority feel threatened. It means those that are peaceably making their voices heard for the first time are winning, however incrementally. For those who ignore this tactic allowing the equivocation to occur unchallenged; it is akin to endorsement. It is not an actual defense of your position or critique of the opposition. It is cowardice.
http://lefthemispheres.blogspot.nl/2013/04/militant-atheism.html
Heddi
(18,312 posts)STALIN!!111!!!eleventy!!11!!
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)(even though he died as a nominal Catholic...)
dangin
(148 posts)I prefer soft and hard agnostic and soft and hard atheist.
Picture a four square game. Top is soft to hard agnostic. The bottom is soft to hard atheist.
I'm a hard atheist. Revealed scripture is proof enough to me that it is all man made. Then lay on how evolution works and reality is just all there is.
Unless we are talking about deism with a non interventional prime mover as god. That is the one case where I have to be a hard agnostic.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The correct four squares are this:
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)That is: a bullshit dog whistle word.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)a "militant theist."
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And shows just how irrational and intellectually bankrupt they really are.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)They are virtually always talking about anti-theism, not atheism. The two are not the same, but it's a handy smear for the intellectually lazy.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..though i've now seen a few self-identify that way. Guess it's a thing.
But not a 'militant' thing.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)a militant anti-theist...but not a "militant" atheist.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..but that militancy is really the cynical product of political-economic ideology of Bolshevism rather than atheism, and it's not as prominent in socialist-communist nations today. Even China has somewhat lessened its Maoist fervor in exchange for owning American debt. Again, however, that's all the cynical use of atheism as a convenient way to repress competitors of the totalitarian regime and is symptomatic of any of them.
Still the term seems useless to me, except as a self-identifying label or dismissive pejorative.
rug
(82,333 posts)EvilAL
(1,437 posts)when they are talking about belief or non-belief. That doesn't make someone a total asshole. I have a friend that hates religion and the only times people say "what a fucking asshole" is when he's talking about religion, he doesn't let up and gets ruder and ruder as he goes. I don't think it's being atheist that does it, he just hates everything about religion for his own reasons and that's that, I don't agree with him, but he's my friend, what can ya do... I also have a friend that is the same way when someone says something bad about their religion, starts up all the ranting and shit. It's no use trying to have a pleasant evening if those 2 are at in the same place. Take the religious discussion out of it they are always fun to be around. There are other times people are assholes about a certain thing like sports, politics....
rug
(82,333 posts)It also happens sometimes on political issues. It's almost as if the topic becomes secondary. I try to avoid doing that, with limited success.
Response to rug (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)those 3 are all assholes. No distinction between them. At least that's what is indicated upthread.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)It's easy to tell. Assuming, of course, you want to.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I assume you mean the person in each that came up with the idea of what to do. So that means you are going to let off the hook the other person in the first two frames that agree to go and do the bombing. You have become a parody of yourself, sir.
rug
(82,333 posts)Of the three who propose something, only the guy who proposes beer is not an asshole.
As I said. It's easy to tell. Unless, as is apparent, you don't want to. It may get in the way of peddling stereotypes.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I find no way in which you identify 3 assholes that you don't let off one of the bombers.
rug
(82,333 posts)Both characters in the first two panels. I miscounted.
You can understand my confusion at what the hell you were getting at.
rug
(82,333 posts)Apophis
(1,407 posts)The theists don't like it when their beliefs are questioned so they equate anyone questioning their beliefs as militant. It's intellectual cowardice.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)and has to let everyone else know. Could also mean they have problems accepting other opinions on the issue. Same think as a religious militant. Some people mean it as an insult others don't. I don't call people militant because I take it as an insult. I say to each there own.
okasha
(11,573 posts)identification as a militant feminist, militant environmentalist, militant Native American and a few more such designations, I call bullshit.
The correct term for those who murder doctors, bomb clinics, etc., isn't «militant.» The correct term is «criminal.»
Response to okasha (Reply #19)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Your attempt at equivocation seems faulty. The parallel term is "religious fundamentalist" , but we cannot (honestly) speak of "atheist fundamentalist" as there is no sacred text for an atheist to be fundamental about, no orthodoxy to adhere to.
A militant is one who fights for a cause, specifically a militant is one willing to shed blood, to engage in physical confrontation to advance a cause. Its misuse as a derogatory term against atheists who defend their disbelief in religious myths and challenge those who continue to profess belief in gods is clear, and the misuse of the word "militant" is obvious.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have called people militant who according to your description does not fit with them.
As for militant atheist I would never refer to a person that way because they might find it insulting. There are atheist just like there are religious people who feel the need to push their opinion to a point that can be overbearing.
okasha
(11,573 posts)defender of any cause who was willing to shed anyone's blood but his or her own. Militants are frequently confrontational or aggressive in expressing their points of view, but can also be utterly committed to nonviolence.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Militancy is appropriate in the face of attacks on our freedom of speech, our freedom from religion, threats against our lives.
Iggo
(47,489 posts)Soon as I see someone seriously use that term, they go straight into my humblebum file.