Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

richard dawkins argues in favor of militant athiesm.

VxGMqKCcN6A

i disagree with him. i am an atheist that would like to remain non-militant. first of all i don't like the term... sounds too war-like.

but dawkins isn't advocating a violent tactic. so he is just using the term "militant" to sound edgy. **** that

but also... i'm not really on board with the idea that we need to pursue a world without religion. that requires systematically trying to dismantle religion. that isn't going to work, i don't think, and it's just going to breed a bunch of resentment. we should just let people think what they want. the idea that religion is making people irrational seems too simplistic to me. people are irrational regardless. atheists are almost always somewhat irrational. they are just selected from a slightly higher IQ than religious people on average. there's really not that much of a benefit to atheism that we need to push it like that... and also, doing so makes atheism seem like a godless religion. "if only we get people to believe what we believe, the world would be a better place." sound familiar, folks?

what are your thoughts?

This is one of the few times I disagree with Dawkins (and, therefore, agree with you), but not without reservation. He tends to be really, really smart about a lot of what he says. And it's unfortunate, because he's an amazing thinker and writer, and a lot of what he says gets buried under vitriol. But I think he misses the mark by a pretty wide margin in trying to identify the best way to get more of a secular foothold in society.

Now, to an extent, anyone who isn't a bit militant is probably ignoring huge numbers of people and areas of the world that are dangerously violent toward the idea of atheism (and thus atheists). Dawkins has made it a point to go into some of these places to see the depths of the hatred leveled at atheists. So it's important to remember where his perspective is coming from...and it's not, for example, the largely sheltered, middle class American upbringing that I've been lucky enough to have. I don't need militant atheism to improve my life. Some do.

So he IS speaking to a need. Just, perhaps, not in the right way. Linguistically, at least, I agree with you. "Militant" is a terrible word to use. As is another he's tried to get to catch on: "Brights" as a way to describe yourself. Too immediately condescending. So maybe it's his tone and delivery I object to more than the message itself.

I think the concept of organized atheism is a bit ridiculous. I can understand the social need for a support system, but most atheists are very much free thinkers in ways that are an anathema to organized anything of this kind. I just...I don't want to lose sight of what Dawkins is attempting, because it's rooted in ideas with justifiable causes. I doubt this thread will remain on topic for very long, because just invoking his name is often enough to derail a thread. But I'm glad you made it, and may have other thoughts to share.

How about "fervent atheism?"

I don't know, I don't have any problem with organization. Just belief in mystical men who love me unconditionally and created everything.

Plus the amount of militant "insert the name of any single religion in existence" we have already is alarming.

What god are you referring to?
The biblical one surely does NOT love unconditionally...

Originally posted by Digi
This is one of the few times I disagree with Dawkins (and, therefore, agree with you), but not without reservation. He tends to be really, really smart about a lot of what he says. And it's unfortunate, because he's an amazing thinker and writer, and a lot of what he says gets buried under vitriol. But I think he misses the mark by a pretty wide margin in trying to identify the best way to get more of a secular foothold in society.yea, i agree he's smart and he is a voice worth listening to. but just like every other prominent athiest... i can't agree with everything he says without feeling like i'm drinking the kool aid. i think that part of the problem is honestly that guys like dawkins have made a significant portion of their career lately off being an atheist polemic, and as such they have a sort of emotional investment in the concept.

for example i was watching a bill maher interview with dawkins where he was talking about an appreciation for science and the universe etc. maher said something to the effect of "it must be hard to you to preach the wonders of science cause the god people can always just easily hijack it."

and dawkins said something along the lines of, "well it's actually beautiful precisely because god didn't do it... understanding how it arose through natural causes without god is what makes it beautiful. if god did it then anyone can do that."

i know where dawkins is coming from with the awe and appreciation for the somewhat bizarrely complicated and meticulous nature of reality... and having that all come to fruition without an intelligent designer. and i can agree with him that this is also a neat story... but i couldn't help but disagree with the "if god did it then anyone could do that" statement. err.. no. anyone couldn't do it. only god/gods could. and call me crazy but i would also think that would be a pretty interesting story as well. it's just i don't necessarily see the reason to conclude that this is what happened. but something being interesting and something being true are two completely different things. it just came across as defensive to me.

and then after that he said "and anyway, if god did do it that doesn't explain anything because then you have to explain god." this came across once again as defensive... a double negation. "did you steal my watch?" "no, i don't steal. and anyway your watch sucks." this is why i feel these polemics become so emotionally invested in their arguments that they start to try to close off any chance that they might be wrong... and this starts to resemble dogma and religion to me.

the approach i would suggest is not to go around convincing religious people to see it our way... but merely to convey why i see it my way. to make my own position sound reasonable... not to be on the offensive trying to undermine every religion or conspiracy theory i come across. cause it's not my job.

this is how i've managed to have friendly conversations with people around here on any topic at work. and this is serious hills have eyes country. many of these people are very religious. and almost everybody agrees that for example 9/11 is an inside job... aliens built the pyramids... shit, i had one guy trying to convince me gravity was bullshit. but as long as i stay relatively friendly and open about it, and don't hassle people about seeing it my way but just speak for me, i've gotten these people to like and respect me. and i never thought that would happen here tbh.


well, here i think the need in question is not to argue in favor of atheism but rather to establish secularism and pluralism as a worldwide ideal. so even here, i think strategy is everything. you worried about atheists in nigeria, saudi arabia? the last thing that will help them is arguing about god with nigerians/saudi arabians.

promoting the idea of mutual respect for other people to believe whatever they want, on the other hand, has some potential to work (i think). short of that.... religious and extremists and atheists/secularists simply won't get along... and so we might as well either avoid each other or just go ahead and have a literal holy war.

i don't mind organization in theory.... maybe atheists do need someone to lobby for them just like any other interest group

but in practice i hate all of the atheist organizations, because they suck and they pick shit fights and make us look bad. like trying to take down nativity scenes and shit... i don't care if it's even technically constitutionally correct, it's pointless and counter productive, and makes us look like a bunch of grinches.

that's what i don't like, the "big issues" in mainstream atheism are a joke. our priorities are all out of wack.

god on the dollar... does the bank still cash your checks? yes? come on man who gives a shit. pointless symbolic fight.

god in the pledge.... err this would be an issue maybe except it's more creepy to me that we repeat the pledge every day in school than it is that god is in there. so the atheist angle is actually not even the most pressing/interesting aspect of even that issue.

yet who is fighting to get the liquor stores open on sunday? here is something that actually affects me, and that probably wouldn't get nearly as much religious resistance. but nah we can't get that done can we?

Militant atheists throughout history.

http://i.imgur.com/W6rBovz.jpg

I hope that's just a pun on the "militant" part.

Red, I'll get back to you soonish.

I notice there's no black people in that picture. You racist.

I could name 7 of the 10.

8 if the first Guy is Franco

Oh you mean that guy on the top left side isn't some kind of wacky experiment where they spliced the dna of Walt Disney and Hitler?