QuoteReplyTopic: Confronting Militant Atheism Posted: 06-Feb-2008 at 14:37
The words being polysemantic so are the statements.
Really? So when you earlier said that I make sweeping statements, did you talk about brooming? I guess not.
I never said that you were refering to suporters or minorities. Since we seem not to share similar opinions regarding militant atheism I was only attempting to show that the kind of generalization you use is not clearly defined and can be quite misunderstood.
My generalizations were contained under the term doctrine and I said that multiple times. Care to explain how soccer fans or minorities relate to that?
You did provided links to a lot of sites but you're not Google obviously so I wanted to know what your opinion is, meaning your own words. Plus, what was on those sites is not absolute and is interpretable.
I also provided book excerpts, not only sites. On most arguments you conceded, anyway.
I don't have a guide to properly choose the significance of your statements. I'm not telepathic either. This is a discussion forum so maybe some of my questions are not exactly serious and perhaps I'm bad at making jokes yet I don't see any of my posts as being an insult.
It's not a matter of telepathy, but of language. If I tell someone "give me a hand" I'm not expecting him to cut someone else's hand of and to handle it to me. If I tell someone "get lost" I don't expect him to roam endlessly in a labyrinth. Of course, we are not always eloquent, but ambiguities - if any - should be addressed as soon as possible, why this insistence on some paths which are obviously serving no other purpose but creating annoyance. Do you really believe that when I was talking about fanaticism of hard-core Communists, Christian fundamentalists, militant atheists I was talking also of soccer fans? If you do, I pledge guilty on ineloquence, otherwise allow me not to reply to such interventions.
Chilbudios, no matter how hard I try to view it different, your last phrases only mean that you consider militant atheism and nazism to be equally bad. Therefore militant atheists should be treated like nazists.
Almost, yes. Some extremists whose views must be properly watched not to evolve into more aggressive manifestations.
Chilbudios, no matter how hard I try to view it different, your last phrases only mean that you consider militant atheism and nazism to be equally bad. Therefore militant atheists should be treated like nazists.
Almost, yes. Some extremists whose views must be properly watched not to evolve into more aggressive manifestations.
[/QUOTE]
But is that feasible? I mean, off course there are obvious nutheads that can and should be directly confronted but how can you stop one that is not acting so obviously? Certainly, since you can fight a person you must fight the doctrine but that's the real trick. Dawkins and Stalin have, to some extent similar, doctrines, yet there are huge differences between those two. In the end calling them both bad because they stick to militant atheism is confusing. Militant atheism is a doctrine you say but I think that it's actually a general designation for different doctrines that only share atheism as the core idea. Therefore an uneducated person or a child will not go to the whole discussion we had but would probably decide that all atheists are bad.
Let's take a priest for the opposite example. He is a militant theist since he preaches his religion. Now, history had shown that militant theism can be harmful so that makes him dangerous? And from what I've witnessed no priest is constant in his discourse. Sometimes he is mild, sometimes he is good, and sometimes he is bad. But he is adressing a lot of people and some of them might go wacko since the priest is not always near them to make corrections if they misinterpret his words.
Since freedom of religion is allowed in what we call civilized world isn't also militant atheism required to insure there's a balance?
People should be free to chose so why should they not choose atheism due to militant atheists that practice militant atheism?
In your statement you mentioned the word "watched". I think you didn't suggested a passive stance here (correct me if I'm wrong). The point is that I can't make up an active stance that is not militant when confronting another militant.
Chilbudios, no matter how hard I try to view it different, your last phrases only mean that you consider militant atheism and nazism to be equally bad. Therefore militant atheists should be treated like nazists.
Almost, yes. Some extremists whose views must be properly watched not to evolve into more aggressive manifestations.
[/QUOTE]
But is that feasible? I mean, off course there are obvious nutheads that can and should be directly confronted but how can you stop one that is not acting so obviously? Certainly, since you can fight a person you must fight the doctrine but that's the real trick. Dawkins and Stalin have, to some extent similar, doctrines, yet there are huge differences between those two. In the end calling them both bad because they stick to militant atheism is confusing. Militant atheism is a doctrine you say but I think that it's actually a general designation for different doctrines that only share atheism as the core idea. Therefore an uneducated person or a child will not go to the whole discussion we had but would probably decide that all atheists are bad.
Let's take a priest for the opposite example. He is a militant theist since he preaches his religion. Now, history had shown that militant theism can be harmful so that makes him dangerous? And from what I've witnessed no priest is constant in his discourse. Sometimes he is mild, sometimes he is good, and sometimes he is bad. But he is adressing a lot of people and some of them might go wacko since the priest is not always near them to make corrections if they misinterpret his words.
Since freedom of religion is allowed in what we call civilized world isn't also militant atheism required to insure there's a balance?
People should be free to chose so why should they not choose atheism due to militant atheists that practice militant atheism?
In your statement you mentioned the word "watched". I think you didn't suggested a passive stance here (correct me if I'm wrong). The point is that I can't make up an active stance that is not militant when confronting another militant.
Cezar, honestly, what do you expect me to reply? To remind you again that Stalin vs Dawkins is not a good analogy, to remind you again that religion vs militant atheism is not a good analogy, to remind you again that militant x-ism vs actions against militant x-ism is not a good analogy, to remind you again that I only formulated some objections against militant doctrines not against actions of whatever nature? Or perhaps do you want me to rewrite what I've said of militant atheism, that is not just a bunch of doctrines sharing atheism as core idea? You're maintaining the same straw men against me for several weeks now, I am simply tired to dismiss all this maze of misunderstandings when all you had to do was to read what I was writing to you.
it shows there are atrocities commited in the name of atheism
I don't know under what criterion what Soviet or Romanian communists did (to destroy the belief in gods and to propagate - among other ideas - the idea there's no god but men and their intelligence, work, society, etc.) does not classify as militant atheism
If there were horrible actions whose purpose was to transform forcefully the society into an atheistic one, because they viewed the religious beliefs as "retrograde", "obscurantist", etc., I think they were done in the name of the atheism, in order for atheism to be the only allowed stance.
The militant atheists have an atheistic doctrine (otherwise they couldn't be militant, they wouldn't have anything to struggle for) which besides holding the atheist belief, usually holds also some anti-theistic beliefs.
Actually I have used throughoutly the term "militant atheism" (in Communism it was called "scientific atheism"). All atheists have in common that belief you have just mentioned. A part of them believe that this belief is undoubtely right and all rational human beings must have it. And here the problems start.
There were episodes which were only about atheism and religious belief. You can say they were part of a larger plan of the Communist authorities but nothing can change there were crimes and abuses commited for the single reason their victims were not atheists.
But what you fail to realize is that among their deeds the Communists launched campains against the religious, against the non-atheists, where the victims fell simply for their belief.
I declared on some other thread that I'm no believer. Yet, for you atheism = grudge against religion (thus you're close to the category of militant atheism I was talking about), for me atheism is a philosophical stance which doesn't stop me to be balanced in opinions or even sympathetic towards religion (if and when it's worth).
Communists were militant atheists, period
Though philosophically atheism is composed from one single belief, in practice most atheists (if not all) share several common beliefs. For instance, you cannot be atheist and claim the Bible is literally true (thus, automatically, atheism means the Bible is literally false). Beyond that there are operative ways to divide this amorphous crowd of atheists. For instance, some believe all people should share their belief (as the only reasonable belief to have), some don't. Thus, we can have a common body of beliefs shared by those which were labeled here as "militant atheists", a body of beliefs which amounts to a doctrine and which can be dangerous (as I have tried to point out)
I honestly haven't meant to generalize what I've said of militant atheism for the atheism. I only wanted to suggest militant atheism (as most militant ideologies, including militant religious ones) is a dangerous thing using the classical example of the communism. This type of discourse is so alike with the practice experienced already under Communism that I only can wonder how well I have chosen my example for why militant atheism is harmful. Any "humanity will eventually see my ideas are right" bears a mark of fanatism and intolerance and sets the stage for totalitarian outbursts. If you don't assume your ideas might be wrong and other people will continue to believe what they want, then freedom as we know it cannot exist.
Atheism is not a monolith, militant atheism is not one, nor Christianity or the Communism.
There are no preset boundaries to define doctrines, doctrines get defined through campaigns, movements, channels, propaganda, etc.. Thus in Communism an atheistic doctrine got shape.
I assume both "militant" and "atheism" are defined in every dictionary, I'm not seeking for any hidden meanings.
Should I explain you the grammar? (it's a noun + an adjective, in case you wonder)
Yes they are all nouns, but not merely. If you have no other arguments beside trolling I'd just quit the discussion.
There's no more circularity in "scientific atheism" than in "atheism" or "science". "Scientific atheism" was actually an attack against religion in the spirit of d'Holbach, Feuerbach, Marx
Only that militant atheism was a distinctive component of the Communist regimes as proven already in the thread.
To be militant in the name of a belief requires a doctrine (it requires a system of beliefs and a principial value assigned to at least some of them, otherwise the militancy cannot be performed).
Communist groups of atheistic propagnda had a goal. Dawkins has a goal. Atheism doesn't have a goal, but militant atheism has.
Antitheism is another name for militant atheism. You're the one mistaking militant atheism with atheism, though I have signaled you repeatedly about the difference.
I've provided a quote from Dewey that illustrates the syntagm "militant atheism" (labeled there also "aggresive atheism") not atheism.
Is "militant atheism" term a non-existing one? (what are these people talking about then?) Is "militant atheism" synonymous with "militant atheists" (cf. your definition "militant atheism is militant atheists")? Let's try a substition to check this out: Bolsheviks must be committed to "militant atheists" expressed through "untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheistic fight." - it doesn't make any sense to me, so no, the terms are not synonymous, your definition is not operative.
I think I offered many enough sources (you have offered none, but few sites on atheism which rather missed the point of our debate) and arguments to show that militant atheism (you can choose another name for it, if it's only the name you find inapropriate) is a legitimate concept and it has an underlying doctrine (you can review my last parallel between militant atheism, Communism and religious fundamentalism).
The same straw man you have attacked all along. We're talking about militant atheism, not atheism. Let me rephrase: do you have example of a modern and (i.e. not primitive) succesful Communist society? Is not violence characteristic - more or less, or perhaps only in some stages - for most attempts to create one? Haven't I proven that the militant atheist doctrine and propaganda shares the same aggression against the Other, like several other extremist doctrines we know of? It's easier to prevent, than to fix.
I answered already several times in the thread, under various forms (e.g. one of my replies from Jan. 21: "The parallels you draw between militant atheism and militant religious organizations only show how dangerous the former is. "). Yes, it is dangerous.
But that's exactly the point. You equivocate religion with fanatism and atheism with militant atheism. You can't show for whatever historical episode you choose (Inquisition, Crusades) that an atheistic mindset of those involved would have avoided that tragedy or wouldn't have caused an even greater tragedy. On the other hand the fanatism and the indoctrination (no matter if in a theistic or atheistic mindset) provoke tragedies or increase the dimension of the existing ones.
This logic is flawed, I already pointed out that the parallelism was between Dawkins and Marx, we don't have yet a Stalin of Dawkinsism and my preventive attitude is to avoid such a thing to happen.
have never claimed that Inquisition follows with necessity from religion (theism), nor that Stalinism follows with necessity from atheism. What I have said is that Stalinism (actually the Stalinist anti-religious persection, discussed earlier in the thread) followed from militant atheism and if you want a parallel, the Inquisition follows from religious extremism, from an impulse to control what people believe.
My criticism on militant atheism were that it is a doctrine like any other.
The discussion being about militant atheism and my position being that this militant atheism is actually a doctrine I expect you to be able to talk about one of the two.
Most of your questions have been answered already. In case you have doubts try to replace in your last paragraph "militant atheism" with "Nazism" and say it on a public radio channel in a Western European country (eventually one where Holocaust Denial is a crime). Good luck!
These are statements of yours: "The militant atheists have an atheistic doctrine" + "Atheism is not a monolith, militant atheism is not one, nor Christianity or the Communism." + "My criticism on militant atheism were that it is a doctrine like any other." Kind of inconsistent.
Do you just like to enter debates for the sake of argumenting against someone else statements?
You are the one who keep on talking about militant atheism (not communism, or nazism or something else) being a doctrine. Your personal only argument was: "Thus, we can have a common body of beliefs shared by those which were labeled here as "militant atheists", a body of beliefs which amounts to a doctrine and which can be dangerous". So because we can have something it means that we already have it? And you constantly refused to define that doctrine. You provide links, invoke grammar, accuse me of mockery, etc. yet you refuse to provide an example of that doctrine that can be dangerous. You used communism for an example which I, and not only, considered unapropriate since communism was using atheism or militant atheism though communism wasn't a just militant atheist doctrine.
The rules of engagement of this forum state that when one posts something another can comment that post. If you are tired of me stop answering my posts, I'll do the same.
If I'd understand what are you looking for I could help you, so I'll skip the large medley of quotes and I'll address the more concise points lying underneath.
You have highlighted three sentences and claimed their inconsistency.
- first one says that militant atheism is a doctrine and atheism is an important belief in this doctrine
- second one says to every doctrine there are some variations
- third one says militant atheism is a doctrine. So how are these three points incompatible? Or what kind of inconsistency do you have in mind?
The difference between "can have" and "have" is a misleading one. "We" refers to us, me and you debating, "can have" - have here in this discussion, conceive, so, yes, we can conceive a common body of beliefs, we can identify them, so that we can legitimize the concept (this is what you have asked all along) of militant atheism. If no common body of beliefs would have been conceivable then militant atheism would have been a term with no substance, a term reflecting nothing. And that was not my only argument, so why don't you reread more carefully the discussion (that big mess of quotes and the apparent random in highlighting is an indicator of uncareful reading if anything).
And you constantly refused to define that doctrine.
How do you expect me to define it? Haven't we studied together several militant atheistic discourses here? Can't you see their common parts? If you can't, then obviously you're not the debate partner I'm looking for. A criticism could have been finding discourses with arguably can be defined as militant atheistic which follow different patterns and then we could have some serious discussion about defining militant atheism or perhaps throw in some new concepts to attempt some clarification. But as long as we face the same pattern, I don't think we should complicate the discussion more than that.
And not only that, you googled for the term and came up with a Wikipedia page which provided some sort of definition (which IIRC meant a relative synonymy with anti-theism).
You provide links, invoke grammar, accuse me of mockery, etc. yet you refuse to provide an example of that doctrine that can be dangerous.
I actually provided plenty of examples, of Communist militant atheistic organizations oppressing violently religion and religious believers.
You used communism for an example which I, and not only, considered unapropriate since communism was using atheism or militant atheism though communism wasn't a just militant atheist doctrine
I haven't used Communist for an example, I have used distinct campaigns, channels, organizations, etc. which operated under some Communist regimes (please note the militant atheism under Commuism was not ideologically supported just by Marx or Lenin, but also of 18-19th century anti-religious philosophers like d'Holbach or Feuerbach!). And besides, Hitler's regime was not just Nazism, Stalin's regime was not just Communism (actually one would argue that most Communist regimes weren't Communist at all, Communism means no state), medieval Inquisition was not just an expansive form of Christianity.
The rules of engagement of this forum state that when one posts something another can comment that post. If you are tired of me stop answering my posts, I'll do the same.
I didn't ask for an answer (most questions I posed were rhetorical anyway). For several pages I had to explain over and over my views to someone like you, believing your interest is genuine and you care for debating some aspects of this topic. Please note the forum rules forbid trolling.
The militant atheists have an atheistic doctrine, that's what you said. I take it now as an unintended mistake for you meant militant atheistic doctrine, if I understand your last post.
You formulated objections against the militant atheist doctrine(s?). And you also mentioned any kind of fanatism, extremism, etc. Then you're an anti-militant militant. According to your line of thought that makes you dangerous.
My point is that is someone decides to became militant, he should be allowed. Of his doctrine components, only those that are dangeous should be challenged. Militant atheism is a too broad definition to mean something.
Let's analyze two ideas of militant atheists :
1. Children should not be taught religion.
2. Religion should be eradicated.
If we just consider the two ideas as being militant atheism it would be like saying socialism and communism are the same.
Therefore it is necessary to define militant atheistic stances differently. Militant atheism is way to inaccurate, therefore it should not be used. Muslims, for example, is used for all those who do share a religious belief. Yet the stances of that belief are quite well separated by clear designations. A taliban is still a muslim but I don't think Omar al Hashim(our mod) would like to be called like that.
The only common thing that separate all militant atheists from non-militant atheists is that they actively support atheism. That might be the definition of militant atheism: active support of atheism. But from this to "militant atheism is dangerous" is a long way. You emphasized the danger of extremism. I highlight the danger of generalization. Due to such approaches some people think that atheist=communist. That's not true, and I'm sure that you agree with me. Yet it is happening because people are using statements like "militant atheism=dangerous".
The militant atheists have an atheistic doctrine, that's what you said. I take it now as an unintended mistake for you meant militant atheistic doctrine, if I understand your last post.
There was no mistake. I meant precisely "atheistic doctrine" which is a doctrine where one of the core beliefs is atheism. I haven't said "atheism" is all what this doctrine has, though. I could have said as well "the militant atheists have an militant doctrine", if I'd wanted to emphasize for whatever reason their aggresivity and intolerance.
You formulated objections against the militant atheist doctrine(s?). And you also mentioned any kind of fanatism, extremism, etc. Then you're an anti-militant militant.
Straw man.
My point is that is someone decides to became militant, he should be allowed.
Straw man.
Of his doctrine components, only those that are dangeous should be challenged. Militant atheism is a too broad definition to mean something.
If the dangerous "components" are removed from militant atheism then it becomes atheism or some other flavour of materialistic doctrine.
Let's analyze two ideas of militant atheists :
1. Children should not be taught religion.
2. Religion should be eradicated.
If we just consider the two ideas as being militant atheism it would be like saying socialism and communism are the same.
If one wants to eradicate religion then he's hopelessly intolerant and consequently dangerous.
Therefore it is necessary to define militant atheistic stances differently. Militant atheism is way to inaccurate, therefore it should not be used. Muslims, for example, is used for all those who do share a religious belief. Yet the stances of that belief are quite well separated by clear designations. A taliban is still a muslim but I don't think Omar al Hashim(our mod) would like to be called like that.
Militant atheism can be defined (and the proof is, that even if you don't admit it, you can find relevant examples, relevant characteristics, so involuntarily you legitimate the concept).
If you believe it is inaccurate you have to show it.
The only common thing that separate all militant atheists from non-militant atheists is that they actively support atheism.
False. An atheistic stance does not require an anti-theistic stance. You can be actively atheist, in all you believe and you do, disrespect for other people and their beliefs is not a necessity.
Due to such approaches some people think that atheist=communist. That's not true, and I'm sure that you agree with me.
It's not true, but is the militant atheistic campaigns under Communist regimes which brought this. Similarly some people think religious = Inquisitorial. Not true, but we understand what is the source of this flawed generalizations.
Yet it is happening because people are using statements like "militant atheism=dangerous".
No, it doesn't. What may happen is that due to association with Communism some people believe the atheism is dangerous. Usually these are some religious extremists. On the other hand associating religion with Inquisition, some people get to believe that religion is dangerous and must be eradicated. These are the militant atheists. Both are extremists and both manifestations must be contained not to escalate.
If we just consider the two ideas as being militant atheism it would be like saying socialism and communism are the same.
If one wants to eradicate religion then he's hopelessly intolerant and consequently dangerous.
You didn't even considered the fact that the two ideas might be two different "doctrines" or that the secont would be no. 1 enhanced. You just thrown o short reply that fits with your ideas. What I see is that straw man is whatever you don't like.
Therefore it is necessary to define militant atheistic stances differently. Militant atheism is way to inaccurate, therefore it should not be used. Muslims, for example, is used for all those who do share a religious belief. Yet the stances of that belief are quite well separated by clear designations. A taliban is still a muslim but I don't think Omar al Hashim(our mod) would like to be called like that.
Militant atheism can be defined (and the proof is, that even if you don't admit it, you can find relevant examples, relevant characteristics, so involuntarily you legitimate the concept).
If you believe it is inaccurate you have to show it.
The only common thing that separate all militant atheists from non-militant atheists is that they actively support atheism.
False. An atheistic stance does not require an anti-theistic stance. You can be actively atheist, in all you believe and you do, disrespect for other people and their beliefs is not a necessity.
Atheism and theism are incompatible so an atheistic stance is antitheistic. Atheism and antitheism are slightly different. One can actively support atheism as an equal choice for anyone. That doesn't mean being either theist or atheist, both can do that. An atheist that actively support atheism as being the reasonable attitude will automatically confront theism to an extent. I, for example support the idea that religious dogmas are inconsistent. My only doubt is about the existence of (a) God(s). Yet I don't actively support the eradication of religion. I do think that eventually religion will turn into something like deism or pantheism. But I'm too well aware that my prediction is not a necessity. In voicing my opinion I expect to being contradicted. The fact that I might not be right is irrelevant.
You seem to support the idea of considering every militant attitude as being nocive.
Due to such approaches some people think that atheist=communist. That's not true, and I'm sure that you agree with me.
It's not true, but is the militant atheistic campaigns under Communist regimes which brought this. Similarly some people think religious = Inquisitorial. Not true, but we understand what is the source of this flawed generalizations.
Yet it is happening because people are using statements like "militant atheism=dangerous".
No, it doesn't. What may happen is that due to association with Communism some people believe the atheism is dangerous. Usually these are some religious extremists. On the other hand associating religion with Inquisition, some people get to believe that religion is dangerous and must be eradicated. These are the militant atheists. Both are extremists and both manifestations must be contained not to escalate.
And to what extent the imperative works? In order to contain an extremist side one needs to actively voice a contrary opinion. If not contrary it would have to be an argument that highlights the "extreme" elements of the manifestation. Which leads in fact to precisely defining the militant stance.
You seem to cherish a neutral stance. By saying that one can stand off and analyze the content of a doctrine and if it has "dangerous" elements getting to an active stance in order to contain at least these elements.
I say that neutrality is an illusion unless one only likes to play the game of contradiction while not having a psoition of his own. Whatever set of values a person has it can't be fully impartial. For example I'm for the exclusion of the religion from the schools, or better said the exposure of children to a single religion. But I don't think actions should be taken to get rid of religion. Therefore I'm some kind of militant atheist. Maybe my ideas are dangerous from the religious point of view. But am I dangerous just for religion or I'm just dangerous?
You didn't even considered the fact that the two ideas might be two different "doctrines" or that the secont would be no. 1 enhanced. You just thrown o short reply that fits with your ideas. What I see is that straw man is whatever you don't like.
I haven't considered the first idea as a manifestation of militant atheism in the first place, so don't blame me for your confusions. You can wish not to have your child being taught religion at school because you have another religion, or because you believe that schools are not the proper way to teach religion. Secularism does not mean anti-theism.
Atheism and theism are incompatible so an atheistic stance is antitheistic.
Not true. Atheism means non-theism not anti-theism. If you don't believe in something it doesn't mean you have something against those who believe in it, it doesn't mean you want to convert everybody to share your beliefs.
Atheism and antitheism are slightly different. One can actively support atheism as an equal choice for anyone. That doesn't mean being either theist or atheist, both can do that. An atheist that actively support atheism as being the reasonable attitude will automatically confront theism to an extent. I, for example support the idea that religious dogmas are inconsistent. My only doubt is about the existence of (a) God(s). Yet I don't actively support the eradication of religion. I do think that eventually religion will turn into something like deism or pantheism. But I'm too well aware that my prediction is not a necessity. In voicing my opinion I expect to being contradicted. The fact that I might not be right is irrelevant.
You're avoiding the core of my objection - the not so slight difference between the atheists and antitheists is the intolerance of the latter, the belief that they are undoubtely right and all the other beliefs incompatible with theirs (which are theistic beliefs) must be eradicated, by a planned education, brainwashing, represssion, etc. (the methods vary from proposal to proposal).
You seem to support the idea of considering every militant attitude as being nocive.
No, I don't and it's not the first time I tell you that. I repeatedly pointed out that I'm talking about doctrines, not attitudes.
And to what extent the imperative works? In order to contain an extremist side one needs to actively voice a contrary opinion. If not contrary it would have to be an argument that highlights the "extreme" elements of the manifestation. Which leads in fact to precisely defining the militant stance.
Straw man. I'm not against activism, I'm not against militancy. If you can't get my points ask, do not assume.
You seem to cherish a neutral stance.
I'm not. Mischaracterizing my person based on your flawed perceptions cannot be anything else but an insult. If you're opaque enough not to understand, keep your opinions for yourself.
For example I'm for the exclusion of the religion from the schools, or better said the exposure of children to a single religion. But I don't think actions should be taken to get rid of religion. Therefore I'm some kind of militant atheist
That's secularism, not militant atheism. Get your facts straight.
Maybe my ideas are dangerous from the religious point of view. But am I dangerous just for religion or I'm just dangerous?
Straw man. I didn't suggest a religious point of view.
Cezar, it's so obvious that you have no intend to understand what I am saying. Either you can't or you don't want to. Whatever the correct option is, from this moment I'll stop replying to you. Margaritas ante porcos ...
You can be actively atheist, in all you believe and you do, disrespect for other people and their beliefs is not a necessity.
The problem here is that religious people seem to regard any public discussion of atheism as hostile because it is, necessarily, a refutation of their beliefs. However, the religious do not pause a moment to think that they behave in an identical fashion. For instance, a public discussion about the necessity or even value of belief in god is, necessarily, a refutation of atheism.
Which is fine, we live in a free society and on this issue, no one should be afraid of the free marketplace of ideas. Just don't pretend that the two aren't in competition in that marketplace. The idea of neutrality in the free marketplace of ideas is tantamount to suicide. Atheists do not expect the religious to quit discussing god in public; in fact, most invite it. It is high time the religious took the same attitude, and accept atheism in the free marketplace of ideas without reservation. Atheism is at odds with religious beliefs, just as religious beliefs are at odds with atheism; however, both have a right to compete for existance in the sphere of public opinion.
With no infrastructure of proselytism, no organized conversion effort, no funding, and no public spaces like churches etc ... atheism is the fastest growing belief system in the developed world. The number of atheists has doubled in the past 20 years. Undoubtedly, it holds broad appeal and it's not going away; deal with it.
You're avoiding the core of my objection - the not so slight difference between the atheists and antitheists is the intolerance of the latter, the belief that they are undoubtely right and all the other beliefs incompatible with theirs (which are theistic beliefs) must be eradicated, by a planned education, brainwashing, represssion, etc. (the methods vary from proposal to proposal).
Here you're setting up a nice boogeyman. You're taking people like Dawkins and attempting to associate them with teenagers posturing on the internet and making silly statements about repressing the religious etc. It is simple to find Christians here and there calling for extermination of Jews or Muslims as well. Most people will see through statements like this with ease; I suggest you refrain from taking this line.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Confronting Militant Atheism
