Discussions of atheism always seem to devolve into spats about how nasty and unpleasant “militant” atheists are. But I don’t think I have seen a good definition of what constitutes militancy in atheism.
Hence this poll.
It is intended to be a graduated sequence of beliefs and behavior. If you believe that all atheists are by definition militant, then you would click the first choice. If you believe that it takes very extreme behavior to constitute militancy, then you would click one of the bottom choices. Or somewhere in between.
I admit it isn’t a perfect sequence, but please find your best ft. It’s a public poll.
Roddy
I would say a ‘militant’ atheist is one who tries to suppress other belief systems, including theism, by force, just as militant theists try to suppress other belief systems by force. So I picked your last option, but even more. (Criticizing a belief system does not count; in a system of free expression, everyone should be allowed to criticize and be able to respond to criticism.)
I’m pretty unhappy with the poll choices, so I didn’t vote.
To my mind, a “militant” atheist would have to be someone trying to force their beliefs on others. And I mean, using real force. You have to be using force to eradicate religion. Anything else is theistic whining, in my opinion.
I’m in the “freely criticizes, unasked” category except I would add the caveat that said criticism is voiced in what I would characterize as an aggressive, often rude manner. “Aggressive” and “rude” in this case being very much in eye of the beholder, such that it kind of falls into a personal “I know it when I see it” sort of definition.
I’m and mild-mannered atheist these days, but I was converted from being at least semi-militant when I was younger. A far more militant friend made me re-evaluate my own behavior one day after making a nice young woman cry on a camping trip. I think he was logically right, but I just don’t see the point in upsetting people unless they force the conversation or are someone actively trying to abridge rights.
I would probably define a militant atheist as “someone who’s a real dick about it.” admittedly, your poll is a lot more specific. A non-militant atheist (as I consider myself to be) makes his or her own choices about belief and allows others to do the same.
All the above, plus who freely criticizes, unasked, religious behavior or beliefs.
Because, for me that is the base level of jerkish behavior, and would consider that “militant”, but I think it is important and not at all militant to want religion and government compeletly separate. So I had to vote for the last option, which goes beyond jerkish and straight to asshole behavior.
I am comfortable with my vote but IMHO this option does not belong because it has nothing to do with atheism: plus who takes legal action to completely separate religion from government
You do not have to be an atheist to oppose government entanglement with religion, nor to take legal action to stop it. Just for example the AJC - a Jewish and theistic organization, has been involved with many church-state disputes, always on the side of separating religion and government through legal means. Just for one example, four times they have filed briefs with US Supreme Court opposing the display of the 10 Commandments by government entities.
That makes good sense; I voted for the last option, but I think you’re right. Aggressive proselytizing, either for or against a religion, is “militant.”
Me too! Worse, I went through a phase of being a real jerk. I once cut down a cross which I thought was on public land. (Doubly stupid: it wasn’t!) I had a lot of rage… But it was discussions like those here on The Straight Dope that helped me back away from the rage. A very good Christian employed “the soft answer that turns away wrath,” and since then, I’ve tried my best to be mild-mannered and tolerant.
(Anybody who says these discussions “never change anybody’s mind” is wrong!)
Actually, I thought discussions of atheism around here always seem to devolve into spats over the definition of the word “atheism.”
A “militant” atheist is an atheist who is militant about his/her atheism. They fight for atheism—“fight” not necessarily connoting physical violence or even activism, but at least vigorous argument. They’re pugnacious, combative, aggressive about their atheism.
After thinking about my own answer, I looked up “militant,” and found a pretty good definition on Wikipedia:
I didn’t like the cumulative “all of the above” options, so I didn’t vote. However, to my mind, a militant atheist is the equivalent to a militant fundamentalist - no tolerance for any other point of view, as obnoxious about their disbelief as some fundies are about their beliefs, and generally just an ass about it.
People who refuse to tolerate those who have different points of view flat out piss me off. I don’t want you preaching anything at me. I don’t go out of my way to be offended by people who live their lives differently from me. I try to live my life without hassling others and I prefer that they not hassle me. Is that really so difficult?
Are there really any people who fall into the last category? (Individuals, I mean, as opposed to, say, Communist regimes, not that even they were very consistent or effective about actually suppressing religion.) It seems like a straw-man category to me. If you choose it you are basically saying that no real-world atheist ever deserves to be called militant, they are all sweetie-pies.
The penultimate category is bullshit too. As other posters have already pointed out, you do not have to an atheist at all to care about separation of church and state. In the USA you really just have to be a firm constitutionalist.
I voted for “All the above, plus who freely criticizes, unasked, religious behavior or beliefs.” As an atheist myself, I find this obnoxious behavior. It is the “unasked” bit that makes for militancy. I agree with those who are saying that militancy also implies a degree of aggressiveness in the criticism, but if you are doing it unasked and unprovoked, that more or less entails a certain amount of aggressiveness.
My impression is that people who use the term mean it as a putdown of people who are atheists and don’t try to hide the fact or apologize for it. That is, I tend to dismiss the term as propaganda.
This is essentially correct. For many centuries in our history, admitting to atheism was a capital crime and would get you booted out of a community or killed. In the last few centuries - in the more liberal of places in the world - it isn’t a crime, but it’s hugely stigmatized. You would be forced to give great deference to religion and not dare publically combat it, and even then you suffered socially.
Only more recently have people felt the ability to treat religion as they would any other superstition and talk freely about it. This goes against our social and religious traditions which say that even if you realize believing in Santa Claus is ridiculous, you may not say so. You must be quiet and reserved and give deference to religion.
So the idea of atheists who can speak freely, who can criticize a dominant religion as they can criticize other unfounded beliefs, is deeply unsettling to religious people. It goes against the very social fabric of our traditional society, so they see it as a transgression.
And because religious people generally have a persecution complex even when they are by far the dominant force in society, they perceive equality - or at least being unable to silence people with other views, as oppression.
The only “new” thing in “new atheism” is that people are not giving religion the special reverance that it demands, that it never be questioned and always treated as valid and with repsect, and instead atheists treat it just like they’d treat any other counterproductive, irrational, unsupported belief.
There really are “militant” theocrats in the world, who will kill you for disbelief. So give me a break with your “he asked me for evidence of God, HOW DARE HE, I’M BEING OPPRESSED” bullshit. You are not suffering from “militant” atheism. You are offended that not everyone is bowing down to your priviledged bullshit beliefs.
“The above, plus who is willing to say so in public (written or oral)”; you are a “militant” atheist if you publicly admit to being atheist; especially if you don’t flagellate yourself about how miserable you are as an atheist and how your life has no meaning without God.
I wonder if some people are interpreting the poll question as What do you mean by the term “militant atheist”? and others are interpreting it as What do you think other people most often mean by the term “militant atheist”?
