One issue discussed in the past here on the SDMB is that, if the militant atheists are correct, the above is like every other moral assertion - it is faith-based just as much as any religious assertion, and cannot be proven.
Regards,
Shodan
Of the three criteria, I’d ascribe “militancy” only to the middle one. And those people are both rude and damaging to their own cause.
Exactly, which is why the default position should be no bigotry until some proof of a different position can be found
Prove it.
Regards,
Shodan
Agreed. Atheists have formed their own religion.
I’m against militancy in general.
It needs not be proven. Utilitarian arguments are sufficient. If not allowing bigotry for any reason provides a more pleasant and prosperous community then that is reason enough for the position. It needn’t be a moral argument at all.
That said, there are plenty of atheistic moral frameworks in which a ban on bigotry is perfectly consistent without supernatural appeal.
Yes indeed. We have built churches, hold masses and have funding to lobby politicians. We are a religion.
How dumb is that. Hell no. The absence of a belief is not a belief. You are putting names and characteristics on something that only exists in your mind. Atheists do not meet, do not have conversations about atheism, do not have funding. In no way is atheism a religion.
You don’t?
Cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, etc.
Come on, gonzo, you’re making this too easy.
Regards,
Shodan
Show me where my church or temple is, then. Oh, I know - the library.
Meh, I don’t like the “we don’t have a church” argument. Fenway Park is often called a church, but that doesn’t make baseball a religion.
So in SHOdanland that indicates atheists have a large and powerful organization and you would call it a church? The sad fact is a small group of people ,who claim to be atheists, are meeting in a few spots around the world. That is not a religion. That is not significant nor is it organized. It probably is only possible because of the internets. But in no way is it anything like a church.
And by your standards the PTA is a religion. Could you at least spend a few seconds thinking about stuff before you make a snarky post?
I’m off to the religion where I clean up state parks now. :rolleyes:
By the definition of the OP, I don’t know of any militant atheists. First, in most parts of the US it would get one beat up or worse.
However, the definition of militant atheist that the mainstream appears to use is someone, like Dawkins, who has the nerve to publish his lack of belief and not hide in the closet like we’re supposed to. I don’t consider a Christian who publishes a book on his beliefs a militant, and I don’t consider a church putting up a Jesus sigh as militant. Militants rant in parks and at street corners and make sure to inject “Jesus loves you” in every conversation. Them I’ve seen.
I guess rather than just post the argument I don’t like I’ll say that I think religion centers on a shared set of actions and beliefs. It is cultural, ritualistic, and normative. It is “what you do” rather than just “what you believe”.
Athiesm or theism is orthagonal to religion or irreligion - you can be religious and athiest (see, UU for example, or some types of Buddhists) and theistic and irreligious (C&E Catholics as one example).
I’ve only known a few, certainly far fewer that militant Christians. These are people that would literally attack professed believer’s intelligence whenever it came up in conversation, just like the militant Christians would go off about how I was going to hell if they asked what church I went to and I said “none, I’m an atheist”.
Like the US Army?
You must not know many Red Sox fans then. 
(Yankees fan here - they are actually devil worshipers.)
Say what you will about “militant atheists”, they’ve never rung my doorbell on weekends trying to convert me.
Nonsense, none have ever worshipped George Steinbrenner.
Did they bring it up, or was it in response to a religious question or assumption? I wouldn’t say that rebutting arguments about saucer men landing or 911 conspiracies makes one a militant skeptic.