Psychology Today talks about the myth of militant atheism:
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.
When the media and others refer to a “militant atheist,” the object of that slander is usually an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God. Conventional wisdom quickly tells us that such conduct is shameful or, at the very least, distasteful, and therefore the brazen nonbeliever is labeled “militant.”
But this reflects a double standard, because it seems to apply only to atheists. Religious individuals and groups frequently declare, sometimes subtly and sometimes not, that you are a sinner and that you will suffer in hell for eternity if you do not adopt their supernatural beliefs, but they will almost never be labeled “militant” by the media or the public. Instead, such individuals are called “devout” and such churches are called “evangelical.”
The lesson here is clear. If you’re an atheist, shut up about it. If you are open or vocal about your atheist worldview, you are a “militant atheist.” Be silent, even though that same standard does not apply to those who passionately disagree with you.
This has been my observation as well — what about you guys?
I’ve always found it interesting that a term like “Christian Solider” can be used in such a casual way (I encountered this term often during my teenage years, when I was part of a Catholic church), but it somehow avoids the militant slant.
That pretty much sums up my experience. There is a double standard.
More of a triple standard actually.
Believers are more accepting of believers in other deities, even while trying to kill one another, than they are of atheists.
I found that out the hard way when I tried to connect with like-minded peacelovers after 9/11. Lots of religious groups in my area reached out to one another–Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, even Wiccans.
When I looked for some emotional help from these same resources, I was told that as a non-believer, I was part of the problem.
Strange. I don’t remember atheists slamming planes into buildings that warm, Tuesday morning.
Believers may be more accepting of believers of another deity than of atheists. But often they are also more accepting of believers of another deity than of believers of their own deity.
Sunnis vs Shiites, Protestants vs Catholics, Evangelicals vs liberal Christians, take your pick. Many of them reeeeally hate their cousins in faith.
Hindus and Jains are just silly because they believe in things that don’t exist. But Muslims are blasphemous because they say false things about God! And Mormons are even worse because they slander Jesus!
I regard it as progress.
First there were women who didn’t know their place.
Then there were uppity negros.
Now there are militant atheists.
We’re heading in the right direction.
“If you’re gay, shut up about it. If you are open or vocal about your homosexuality, you are a “militant homosexual.”
To be fair, I have met some obnoxious atheists. (If I’m being really honest, I might even admit that I’ve behaved that way myself a time or two.) But “militant”? Never.
Definite double standard.
“I have met some obnoxious atheists”
Well I suggest you fuck right off then …
::snerk::
;-)
I knew a guy who was obnoxious about everything, including his atheism. But really, he was just pissy about everything. A real peach.
I always heard the term “militant atheist” used in the context of an atheist who is not just open about it, but extremely adamant that they are right. It’s not just saying that you’re an atheist that makes you “militant”; it’s “preaching” that makes you militant. I think it’s definitely a misnomer, but I’ve never heard anyone use “militant atheist” to describe someone who was just out about it. Of course, I don’t run in evangelical Christian circles anymore, so they might be using “militant” to describe me now for all I know … which would be hilarious.
If preaching is being militant, then every preacher is militant. And I have never seen atheist standing on street corners screaming REPENT and/or holding signs in the air with stupid excerpts of a “holy” book. Strange enough that [the religion of choice here] ppl do not mind ppl of their own faith being militant. But when ppl of another faith do the same thing…
LONG LIVE THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER
Ooops
The last part should have read like this:
LONG LIFE THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER
OMFSM
Like this (replace [] with in your minds please)
[screaming at the top of the lungs]LONG LIFE THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER[/coughing and clearing the now sore throat]
I used to use the term “militant atheist” about myself occasionally …. then I thought about what it really meant, and that I had yet to blow up any houses of worship (nor had I any plans to ever do so). So, I stopped using it.
While I am not an evangelical in my atheism I do respond to every bit of nonsense that is flung my way by whatever flavor of theist. I would never recommend that atheists ‘shut up about it’ but they do need to be well informed in their responses as most all are on this forum. A well researched correction of misconceptions is my gift to any theists that care to listen once they have invaded my space either electronically or in the real world. I have lost a few friends over the issue but it is too important to ignore, especially with the constant efforts to infuse more and more religious malarky into our government, public schools and other tax funded institutions.
One of my closest, and oldest, friends who I have always known was a conservative Catholic, was apparently (and a bit of a surprise to me) not aware of my atheism until I made a passing, jokey comment about it in an e-mail to him a couple of years ago. I always assumed he understood that I was at the very least , secular.
But, this passing comment unleashed a huge e-mail debate and he readily admitted that he felt that declaring oneself and atheist, even to a close friend in a private manner, presumed some kind of militancy. I was flabbergasted. We are still close, perhaps closer now. He is incredibly intelligent, articulate, and very well-read. I think each thinks the other will eventually come to his senses.
I have a suspicion that to certain Christians all Muslims are militant, just as all atheists are (want to build a mosque in our town, militant). The only difference is that some Muslims do take up arms in the name of their religion.
So do some Christians. Those freaks in Michigan a year(or so) back, for example.
I think it’s an overly-narrow definition of the word “militant.” Militant does not mean “actively engaged in violent activity,” it means being confrontational or aggressive. So modern usage is more metaphorical than descriptive.
“An atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God” might fit that definition, although I think it’s a stretch; folks like Dawkins and Hitchens certainly do.
There’s an excellent discussion of usage of the word “militant” on Wikipedia.
Dawkins is far from militant. Refusal to passively accept nonsense without arguing back does not make one militant.
If that was all he did, maybe not; but I think Dawkins’ very public advocacy of atheism and his confrontational style qualify him as atheist. At one point, at least, he agreed with me — he’s described himself at least once as a “fairly militant atheist.”
“Qualify him as atheist?”
I meant “qualify him as militant.” Sorry about that.
By that logic, every preacher who stands in a pulpit is militant.
+1
The same could be said true of politics.
I have no political affiliation because I think that most if not all politicians are overpaid for their “qualifications” and efforts. People try to convince me that I can’t -not- have a preference regarding party or policy, as though I might possibly be touched in the head to think that they are indeed the crazy ones for being so receptive to the grand delusion of politics. Imagine how silly they’ll feel when people finally take responsibility for their own lives and actions and don’t need governing bodies to baby sit them.
I suppose that we’ll all be dead and gone by that time. Such a shame.
I think the term “militant atheists” could be legitimately applied to atheists who object to other people not being like them. For example, if at a secular conference and the speaker says “let’s just take a minute to pray for the victims of the earthquake last night” Is that a problem? Why? Various people will be praying to various Gods. An Atheist can take the time update Facebook or check twitter. Only a “militant atheist” would object because other people are praying.
I’m pretty sure “militant” works best when you’re afraid for your life.
That’s why “moment of silence” is the preferred term, while prayer is presumptuous. We appear to be acknowledging a sorrow en masse, and if it’s a major event at which a “moment of silence” is called for, people have probably already gave at least one thought to its momentousness. I don’t know these silly customs, like let’s think of it all – again, together, right now, because I suggested it. Many people have multiple concerns and may use that time (it’s silent, so no one will really know) to worry about a meeting or whether their kid is doing drugs or some bullshit about the Kardashians or pray about their father-in-law’s cancer instead, or pray or just think about the thing, but we put on a show. That’s the custom.
Yeah, I take offense that prayer might be suggested because it’s presumptuous, and yet I recognize people’s needs to want to mark an event with silent thoughts (including prayers). “Join in prayer” suggests exclusion from the group you presume to be talking to, and no, I’m not “militant” enough to object right at that time, because that seems like a dick move. That’s why the word “militant” is invoked, any time anyone who cannot be presumed to be in the group one is speaking to has the audacity to be vocal, it’s an attempt at censorship; let me be comfortable while I take no effort to make you be comfortable here among us, let me treat you all as my favorite religious types and not become aware that my speech is exclusive and presumptuous.
That’s why “moment of silence” is the preferred term
That was what I was going to write too.
Ack.
When I’ve heard “militant atheist” used, I’ve not heard it violent terms, but in terms of aggressiveness.
No one appreciates being told how and what they should think, believe, purchase, etc.
I really dislike pushy salespeople, those who are aggressive about what they want for you but are completely uninterested in what you want for you.
I really dislike aggressive preaching, door-to-door evangelism, and all other sorts of forms of religions “persuasion” that is 100% confident in the truth of its claims with little to no regard of the people being “persuaded.”
I really dislike “evangelistic” atheism that is 100% confident in the truth of its claims with little to no regard of the claims, ideas, beliefs, etc. of those being “evangelized.”
My experience is only my experience, but it’s the latter type of atheism that I’ve heard people call militant. Yes, there are better ways to describe this, but no, I don’t think most mean it in terms of its violent definitions.
Nobody wants to be talked down to, whether by a pushy salesman, a door-to-door Seventh Day Adventist, or fill in the blank, because there’s never any mutuality or respect in those types of “conversations.”
“Militant” atheism is almost Newtonian atheism, in my experience. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I don’t generally talk about my position on religion and other supernatural claims, but when some arsehole who knows I’m atheist starts on the passive aggressive bullshit about how wonderful it is that they get to go to heaven because they believe in their particular version of their particular God, then they will get the same back in spades, minus the passive part (which is lost to friction).
You talk about “evangelistic” atheism, but tell me: How many times have you seen atheists go to Christian blogs or public spaces and try to deconvert people from their religion? In my experience, it’s extremely rare, and if done at all is done by trolls. Richard Dawkins gives talks where people have paid to come and hear him. We disseminate those talks here in a space designed to be a haven for atheists. Christians such as yourself are of course welcome, but you know what the environment here is ahead of time, so you can’t really say we’re evangelising.
I wouldn’t even think of going to a Christian blog or forum and trying to convince people adopt my view of the universe. I don’t know of any atheists who do that, although I suppose there might be some who get their jollies that way. Mostly we just want to be left alone, and our atheism is only an issue when someone else decides to make it an issue. I would not call my reaction to religious aggression “militant”; I’m not out to advance an atheist agenda to deconvert everyone on the planet, I’m out to defend my right not to be Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or whatever.
Why not “convert” from atheism to agnosticism, which doesn’t really qualify as an “ism”?
“God? I don’t know and I don’t care.”
“Religion? I don’t know and I don’t care.”
“Life after death? I don’t know and I don’t care.”
“Origin of the universe? I don’t know and I don’t care.”
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
I love this quote. All at once Jefferson is asserting both the vital importance of separation of church and state, as well as the need for religious tolerance. People can believe whatever they want to and worship whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t harm others. Yeah, I know – “as long as it doesn’t harm others.” We could debate about that all day. But the truth is, what my neighbor does believe really doesn’t pick my pocket or break my leg. It doesn’t matter.” — Plagiarized from Jefferson’s “Notes on Virginia” and from “CowGirlFromHell.”
“Everyone should believe in something. I believe I’ll have another beer.” — Attr. to W.C. Fields
The greatest problem I have with atheism is that in their efforts to prove that the cosmos is self-created from a primordial speck, or is self-existent, or self-something, SOME atheists manage to get the power of the state to rob me to pay for their speculations and searches. Not all atheists, mind you. The ones who go about their lives being inoffensive are not the problem any more than the believers in religion who mind their own business, not keeping their faith a secret but not pounding on my door either, are a problem to me. It’s the minority, the ones who coopt the overwhelming power of the civil state to rob me on pain of death who are the problem. Mars? It will still be there when this and a thousand generations have passed, and if not it won’t matter.
Leave me alone and stop stealing from me to support your Unreligion. If they would convert to Agnostic, they wouldn’t care about Mars. Or bones found in the ground.
Is atheism also militant because it a light upon the obvious? The whole activity of religions is to convince the wanting and gullable to disgregard reason and justification. It take daily and weekly repetition to stove off the reality of our every day experience that the God they are wild-eyed about is simply fictitious. Atheism is “armed” with the only the accumulation of scientifically verified knowledge. That is why our voice alone is so threatening.