I came across a new definition of militant atheist:

As we all know, a militant theist is one who kills nonbelievers while a militant atheist is one who has the gaul to express displeasure at being a 2nd-class citizen. We know have a new definition:

A militant atheist is who defends reality:

I pointed out that creationism is incompatible with evidence. That makes me a militant atheist. That puts me in the ranks of Doctor Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project who claims to be a Christian. Catholics are all militant atheists.

Doctor Francis Collins is a Catholic and we all know that Catholics are not true Christians. We should listen to Pat Robertson who is an Evangelical Protestant. ¡Wait a minute! Pat Robertson accepts the evidence that the Earth is old and does not believe that the Flintstones is a documentary. ¡Pat Robertson is a militant atheist too!

A militant theist is one killing nonbelievers; while a militant atheist is one complaining about being a 2nd-class citizen or a reality-defender.

4616327
*or a Catholic

4616327

Pat Robertson accepts the evidence that the Earth is old and does not believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.

Well, that surprises me. He's still an ass.

4616327
(stares at OP)

(stares at his bottle of beer)

(pours the rest of the beer down the drain)

I have no idea what any of that meant.

4616327
Just poking my head in here briefly because Walabio sent me a link via PM.

If you Google "militant atheist" the top result is this.

I skimmed most of the article, and I'd say that this is a fair definition. It may not be linguistically accurate (no one is suggesting that a militant atheist actually kills theists). But they do seek to kill the theists' beliefs. The term 'militant' is more a reference to the fact that a militant atheist will actively seek out expressions of theism and seek to eradicate it.

Things like trolling some teenage girl's blog post striking up a debate about the validity of her beliefs simply because she blogged about her excitement of visiting the creation museum, and then making a thread in the Science! In Equestria forum inviting everyone there to come and see the poor deranged girl's post. Yeah, I'd call that 'militant'. In an example such as this, a "moderate atheist" would likely just roll their eyes and internally sigh regarding the silly girl's beliefs. Someone who simply has "nonbelief" does not strike up a cause and seek to eradicate the opposing point of view. In this way, the "militant atheist" actually behaves very much like he has a religion.

So, again, this article seems to sum up militant atheism rather well.

Okay, I'm out. That's all I wanted to say. I'm not against atheists as people, btw - I respect your right to unbelief. Cya. o/

4616716

I just went into a really long rant about how I feel about all this, but I've got the 'feels that religion is harmful' bit down-pact, and I'm not apathetic towards religion, but I suppose where I differ from militant atheists is that I simply don't have the energy to try to dismantle faith everywhere I see it. I don't think it's a productive endeavor. Fighting against bigotry and anti-science attitudes is tough, but I think it's far tougher to ask someone to denounce whatever god they've been taught to believe in, and attempting to do so usually is the end of the conversation.

You mentioned a girl creationism, however, and I would have to say that I would absolutely contend with the notion that the world is six thousand years old, or that Darwin was wrong, everywhere I see such assertions being made. A single person believing in a deity is potentially harmful, but that same person believing that evolution is 'just a theory' is absolutely harmful.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about what people believe. I think we should all live and let live, you want to believe in a god, and follow a religion? Go right ahead! You want to not believe in any religion, seeing them all as fake? More power too you! The issue comes when people try to shove their views down other people's throats. And that goes both ways. We should all just accept that people have different beliefs (or lack thereof) and be done with it.

4616944
Exactly. You get assholes in every community. I'm an atheist, but if you're a person of faith, and it brings you comfort, and you think it helps you to be a good person, and you aren't using it as an excuse to hurt people? Then I don't care. I'm happy that you're happy. Let's have a party.

4616944

I would agree with you, save in cases where a person's beliefs involve denying provable facts about our universe. I'm not going to 'live and let live' when someone else is actively impeding the intellectual growth of mankind.

4616961

save in cases where a person's beliefs involve denying provable facts about our universe

Said beliefs only matter when zealots use them to try to influence others.

Which, unfortunately, happens quite a lot here in the US, but you know what I mean.

Facts are true regardless of whether you believe them.

4616867

Okay, well I'd categorize you as something other than an atheist, then. From what I can tell, atheists generally prefer to be viewed as people who simply "lack belief". Is this not correct? Yet your view appears to be more of a belief than a lack thereof. If I were to guess, I would say that you likely hold a belief in materialism, or scientism. It is the belief that all things can be proven via the scientific method. That if science cannot determine it, it is not real. It is the notion that the material space-time universe we can observe is all that exists because any spiritual realm would by definition be outside the ability of science to test.

Furthermore, the fact that you would willingly interfere with someone else's beliefs (regardless of your opinion about them) suggests even further that you hold to a belief rather than a lack thereof. A genuine atheist position is much more like what 4616944 said. It does not subscribe to anyone else's beliefs, but does not care one way or another what others believe. I would still argue that it is impossible to remain fully neutral though. One would have to actively hide from observing the world to be totally void of any personal views on it. Still - this is how atheists seem to prefer being defined. As simply having a lack of belief.

Someone who actively opposes the beliefs of theists would need a new term to define the group. Rather than "militant atheist", I propose two new options to pick from: antithest or theophobe. I say the latter in jest, of course, because of its common ground with the term "homophobe" which is a nonsensical word from a linguistic standpoint. A theophobe would be someone who opposes theism in the same way that a homophobe opposes homosexulity.

I highly recommend the term "antitheist" to describe the body of believers in materialism and scientism - those who actively evangelize their belief that all things spiritual are absolutely false. Those who leave no room for doubt, and who do not tolerate theistic beliefs of others.

What do you think? Good term? I rather like it. I think it's quite accurate.

4616961
I'd argue that no useful science depends on Darwinian evolution being a thing. Not talking about biological adaptation here - that is observable - I'm talking about mankind evolving successively from whatever y'all think the very first life form was. Again - believe what you want, but I don't see how you can justify the statement that denial of that type of evolution is harmful. No form of medicine relies on it. No useful scientific advancement requires it to be true.

4617227

> "Not talking about biological adaptation here - that is observable".

¡That is biological evolution! This statement is like rejecting Heliocentrism and then acknowledging that the planets orbit the sun.

> "I'd argue that no useful science depends on Darwinian evolution being a thing."

Willful ignorance is no excuse:

Useful Applications of evolution

It is literally only a search away. As for human evolution, in historical times, we evolve lactose tolerance and a resistance to HIV and Plague (the Plague-Resistance came 1st, but also prevents HIV-Infection).

We have substantial evidence of previous human evolution. Again, it is only a search away.

4617227

Okay, well I'd categorize you as something other than an atheist, then

While DH7 may or may not be those things you suggest he might be, I leave that up to him to confirm, he has stated he is an atheist and that is true based on what he expresses as his beliefs.

Being an atheist is not a complete picture. Someone can be a materialist and an atheist. Someone can be a deist and an atheist. Someone can be a secular humanist and an atheist. A communist and an atheist. A Buddhist and an atheist. The list of things atheists can be is extensive. All being an atheist means is "I'm not a theist." It means, "whatever positive view I might happen to hold, it is not one that can be labeled as "theist" because I don't believe in gods." This is the very fundamental reason why most people who try to paint atheists as a particular thing fail. Because being an atheist is not being a thing, it is a declaration of exclusion from a thing. The only thing someone can positively assert they are that cannot logically and truthfully coexist with being an atheist is a theist.

Furthermore, the fact that you would willingly interfere with someone else's beliefs (regardless of your opinion about them) suggests even further that you hold to a belief rather than a lack thereof.

Again, wrong. False dichotomy, and probably some other things. You do not have to have a correct answer or better answer in order to point out a wrong answer. Such a logical state only exists if there are two options. But regardless of how many other options exist, a wrong answer is still wrong.

or scientism.

I was just going to gloss this one over, and make the assumption that it meant something "neutral" along the lines of "considers science important."

Having read the article, and followed through on some of the citations, I'm finding that those who use and "coined" the term mostly are idiots, who wish to discredit the value of science by attempting to impose limits on what it apparently is allowed to examine. Sciencism is a label for overstepping this imaginary boundry. Tom Sorell in particular looks like a laughingstock.

But I find this label repupgnant. It is certainly telling of your own character if you buy into the legitimacy of this label enough to suggest it apply to someone else. I'd go so far as to say that is an insult at least on par with my own usage of words like idiot and moron.

I'm sorry, you don't get a pass just because your insult is snuck in and attempts to look polite. I could say your genitals are microscopic and malfunctioning, and that is still exactly as much an insult if I said your dick is tiny and will never be used except for pissing.

Someone who actively opposes the beliefs of theists would need a new term to define the group.

A new term is not needed. "anti-theist" is a word already. An anti-theist is on the list of those who can be atheists. Of note, an anti-theist can also be a theist. In fact, many are. Because a theist believes in a god or gods, and the overwhelming majority of them believe in a particular god to the exclusion of other possible gods. Therefore most theists are also anti-theist in regard to theists who don't match up closely to their own.

But being a materialist or various other things are not themselves incompatible with being an anti-theist any more than they are incompatible with being an atheist.

Your categories are in dire need of work.

4616970

Said beliefs only matter when zealots use them to try to influence others.
Which, unfortunately, happens quite a lot here in the US, but you know what I mean.
Facts are true regardless of whether you believe them.

The thing is, the moment I hear something, like the world is only six-thousand years old, from someone, then that's when someone has chosen to voice what's in their head, potentially spreading and reinforcing that particular idea. I'm not going to go around asking Christians if they're young-Earth creationists or evolution deniers, but once someone goes out of their way to make that known, then I see that behavior as a thread, and I feel compelled to refute their assertions.

But yes, facts are true regardless of whether or not someone believes in them, and presenting facts is really all I can effectively do to help minimize the effect that ignorance can potentially have to spread.

4617227

I think Cryosite did a better job at explaining terms, their nuances, and variations in meaning better than I can. When we talk about these labels, and their different variations, we're also talking about splitting hairs between differences that not everyone who subscribes to those labels, really even agrees on. It's difficult to label ourselves, and usually downright foolish to attempt to label others, especially when one's knowledge of said labels is rather limited.

I identify as an agnostic-atheist, an anti-theist, a proponent of religious tolerance, a progressive, a toker, a gamer, and a great host of many things, as human beings tend to be.

If anything, I'm not completely sure about labeling myself as an anti-theist, because it's generally expected that anti-theists are activists in their dislike of religion, and that's not an aspect I can claim. I'm someone who would like to see an end to religious thinking, but not someone who feels particularly inclined to make that a personal goal. I'm interested in promoting scientific thinking, tackling social issues, promoting a progressive agenda, upholding the separation of church and state, and just happens that many of my interests overlap with the interests of those specifically concerned with promoting secularism, but these are also things I was very much interested in back when I was a die-hard Christian.

When it comes to promoting scientific thinking, I see little reason to concern myself with whether or not I can imagine the practical applications of science. I can see little reason why knowing things about our world wouldn't be practical, but for the sake of argument, I'm going to say that not rejecting evidence, and continuing to satiate our curiosity through the scientific method, is a virtue unto itself and to stand against that is to stand against the betterment of mankind.

Going back to your assertion that atheists are people that assert that don't have any beliefs, I would have to say that it's stretching it a bit too far to say that we believe in nothing. I believe in leftists economic policies, for instance, but that doesn't mean that I subscribe to the church of democratic socialism. Atheism is specifically a lack of theological beliefs, and I would go further and emphasize the fact that it's a false equivalence to suggest that believing in something because we have a great deal of evidence that proves something is true, and that a belief based on nothing, or on a source that claims it's own authority, is in any way on equal terms.

I'm rather perplexed by your statement about adaptation. Adaptation is a part of evolution. I'm not quite sure as to whether or not we're talking about different things, or the same thing. I was hoping that things like evolution denial and young-Earth creationism, the idea that the Earth is only about six-thousand years old, were dwindling enough within the Christian community that I wouldn't have to put up with the headache of dealing with that at this time.

There's this notion among many religious folks that evolution is 'just a theory', completely misinterpreting what a theory actually is, relying on complete ignorance of just how much evidence there is to support it. Telling me that we didn't evolve from apes, or that we aren't genetically related to . . . everything is like telling me that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun. Every argument I've heard that has attempted to refute it, has hinged on a lack of understanding, or has been outright nonsense designed to sound good to those who simply don't know any better, those who would desperately cling to scraps of faulty reasoning in order to maintain their precious worldview.

Bill, Bill, Bill, BIll!

4617227

d argue that no useful science depends on Darwinian evolution being a thing. Not talking about biological adaptation here - that is observable - I'm talking about mankind evolving successively from whatever y'all think the very first life form was. Again - believe what you want, but I don't see how you can justify the statement that denial of that type of evolution is harmful. No form of medicine relies on it. No useful scientific advancement requires it to be true.

you know that huge thing I just wrote that I explicitly told you NOT to read?

I reverse myself .

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go read it. I beg you. Especially the part about the massive predictive power of evolution.
Much , probably MOST modern medicine derives EXPLICTLY from evolution. Every time you get a flu shot, that is evolution. every time you are given antibiotics and EXPLICIT intstuction how to use it , that is evolution. Any times genetics in any way interacts with your medical situation, evolution. Heck, basic human anatomy is near impossible to understand without at least understanding some eovlution, since evolution is the process that as best we can tell, led to the human anatomy!