Friendly Atheist

What could the militant atheist be planning to do with the brown liquid in the glass?

a) Throw acid in a girl’s face for daring to go to school?
b) Serve poison-laced kool-aid to his followers in Guyana?
c) Symbolically drink the blood of Richard Dawkins?

I don’t know. What other possibilities could there be?

I’m militant like that, so long as what’s in the glass is Diet Coke.

Ah yes, we are the one perfectly pure and innocent group. No atheist has ever harmed a theist motivated by ideology. Congratulations, us!

Paul, I think the point here is about the language – in order for someone to use the phrase “militant atheist” all they have to see is an atheist talking about their beliefs, wearing an atheist t-shirt, being part of an atheist organization, etc. The line is drawn quite differently for us than it is for religious people, who are usually only called “militant” if they are harming others. I’ve never even heard of aggressive proselytizers, like Mormons, referred to as “militant.”

Using the word in relation to feminism or atheism isn’t a way of describing us as violent; it’s a way to marginalize us and allow others to ignore what we have to say by making it sound like we’re a radical fringe group instead of peaceful, reasonable people.

In the case of an atheist who turns to violence in a way directly related to their atheism, I would absolutely have no problem with someone using the term “militant atheist” – but that’s not how it’s being used.

Beckster FTW!

SarahH–Eloquently said. Thanks for your post!

Thanks also to Hemant for posting the catroon, which made me smile (I needed that).

Beckster–I’m not sure the guy is depressed so much as lost in philosophical thought. (Or, maybe, stoned.)

[...] a post that puts militancy (i.e., the term “militant atheist”) in perspective. I think this comment hit the nail on the [...]

Honestly? Looks like Root Beer. I hope it’s A&W…

I wish it were darker so I could claim Guinness. Mmmmm, Guinness…

Yeah, that sums up the militant atheist, alright: Sitting at a bar by themselves, drinking because no one but the bottom of the glass seems to want to listen to reason…

A few thoughts come to mind:

1. Not that I’d agree with doing this, but if we want to play the caricature game like the comic does, we simply need to put a picture of someone like Josef Stalin below the words “Militant Atheist.” Yes, it’d be unfair to do this, but that’s the point.

2. More importantly, the real question is not whether atheists are moral or immoral, but whether they have the grounds or justification to be moral or immoral. Let’s agree, for instance, that many if not most atheists behave more morally than many if not most theists. Fine and good. But given an atheistic worldview such as evolutionary naturalism or scientific pantheism, on what basis does the atheist justify his or her moral behaviour in the first place?

3. Finally, have a look at atheist philosopher Peter Singer’s comments here:

Singer’s beliefs have led him places where few others are willing to go. He has suggested, for example, that parents who give birth to a hemophiliac might be better off killing it, especially if they could replace that dead infant with one who would be “likely to have a better life.” Singer often complains, with justification, that his comments on such issues are exaggerated and taken out of context. So it might be best to let him present the argument himself:

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.

Few people will ever consider infants replaceable in the way that they consider free-range chickens replaceable, and Singer knows that. Yet many of those who would never act on his conclusions still agree that if an infant really had no hope of happiness, death would be more merciful than a life governed by misery.

In this sense, then, aren’t ideas more dangerous than guns, since it’s ideas that often lead to the sorts of tragedies we’ve witnessed in history? And, in my view, certain forms of Islam, Christianity, and atheism all espouse potentially dangerous ideas.

Why is the atheist white? Does anyone else think he kinda looks like Adrian Hayter?

just because the atheists in the USA have not (yet) killed, doesn’t make atheism innocent. see, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Soviet_Union.3B_20_Million_Martyrs

atheism has arguably more bloodshed to account for in the last century than all other dogmas combined.

I suggest you change the beer to a computer. Each is showing that persons “weapon” except the atheist. The atheist’s weapon is knowledge.

I believe the Whites defined the Soviet issue as religious.

TDD: to rebuttal your claims

1. Just because a person was an atheist does not imply that the actions taken by that person are in the name of atheism. This kind of logic is the same to saying a person collects stamps, so when he kills someone, its his stamp obsession that motivated him. The two have no correlation to each other. Similarly, your argument of Stalin holds no grounds.

2. This statement basically says nothing. To rephrase your “argument:” a person who believes in Christianity holds his morals on a set of stories and folktales written by hundreds of fanatics, and uneducated people in the past. A person who reasons argues that killing is wrong based on the foundation of reasoning and logic. Where is the problem here?

3. Now it is your last sentence that I can certainly agree with. Well said. However, if you are going to present arguments on the dangers of all religions and atheism, please do so in a fashion that actually has some basis on reality and logic.

It is sad that the third militant is so afraid of weaponry. Does he forget a “si vis pacem, para bellum rule”?

fetisov, you are my favorite atheist ever! Those “militant” atheists are just as bad as all the religious zealots

TDD: You sound like someone who has not even the remotest familiarity with “ethics”.

If you knew anything about it then you would not be skeptical about the ability of atheists to make principled moral judgements.

And let me ask you: How do you propose to justify following any one of the multitude of possible ’scriptures’, and having chosen, how will you justify which chapters of that self-contradictory nonsense to throw out?

As for Peter Singer: Firstly, by mentioning him you actually refute your own rhetorical point, because despite being an atheist, his moral judgements *have* been derived in a principled manner after all.

Secondly, it’s idiotic to imply that Singer’s moral judgements follow from his atheism. No moral consequences whatsoever can be inferred from God’s non-existence. Hence, whatever morality an atheist subscribes to will have arrived at totally independently of their being an atheist. Look at someone like Thomas Nagel – also an atheist – whose views are completely different from Singer’s (and more concordant with everyday intuition).

Stalin