The poll is flawed, there is no option for ‘Atheist who uses firearms and/or explosives to make their point’.
(Technically that would also include the Mythbusters, but you get what I mean.)
I think there’s a qualitative difference between “freely criticizes, unasked” vs. “takes legal action to separate”. The former involves personal discussion of religion. The latter is taking action to keep church and state legally separate.
I voted for the last one, but on reflection that’s not entirely correct - that would be militantly antitheist or anti-religious. It’s not really possible to be militantly atheist, as atheism simply refers to the lack of a belief.
This isn’t a distinction that usually matters much, but with the nature of debate on this board, it’s worth pointing out.
I didn’t vote, there wasn’t a choice for “None”.
Also, I personally think that the general definition of a militant atheist as espoused by religionists is any atheist that dares to speak up against religious inequity.
I know it’s in poor form on the SDMB to respond with little more than “I agree,” but so it is.
I quite agree.
There was some douchebag awhile ago who did some kind of project called “reshelve the Bible in fiction!” He basically went into libraries, taking the Bibles out of the religious studies section, and put them in fiction and tried to encourage others to do the same. (He tried to claim it was in the historical section, which is bullshit.) I believe enough people told him he was only creating more work for librarians that he finally stopped.
I’d say that guy would be a militant atheist. (Likewise, someone who tried to reshelve the Bible in the “history” section would be a “militant theist”)
That’s not how I use the term. I chose the last one – basically someone who tries to push their beliefs (or non-beliefs) on you, unasked, while belittling the other person’s. THAT’S being “militant”. Atheist, theist, whatever.
I think this does an injustice to those religious people who actually take the effort to force their beliefs on others through violent means. Extremist Muslim suicide bombers are actually using weaponry; someone like Richard Dawkins is just hurting Christian and Muslim feelings by pointing out that their beliefs are wrong.
I’m not sure; I think that may go beyond militant into delusional/trollish. I say “delusional” because it’s hard to imagine a more logical place for the Bible than a “religious studies section”. I suppose it depends if you are using “militant” in the “determined and aggressive” sense, or in the “willing to use force” sense. He was using force, even if it was against objects and not people.
Perhaps unfortunately, “uses violence” wasn’t one of the poll choices for what “militant” means.
I’d consider Der and Dawkins to be militant atheists. I don’t consider the term to be especially derogatory though. It’s just a way of distinguishing more vociferous atheists from polite ones. Carl Sagan and perhaps Stephen J. Gould might be examples of lower key personalities: they were vocal, but not strident. When I use the term militant atheist, I’m alluding to a societal shift as much as anything else. Then again Madalyn Murray O’Hair was certainly in the militant column.
The Bith Shuffle: Well, it’s not like we’re discussing atheo-terrorism. I suppose I could label Dawkins one of the “New Atheists”, but somehow I don’t think that would go over very well.
I didn’t vote, because there’s no way to answer what I really think without including crap I don’t. Separation of church and state is vital for the preservation of religious freedom, and many spiritual people are in support of it. It’s not just an atheist-only credo, so any “All of the above” does not apply to my answer. Separation of church and state is not a part of the militant question at all, as far as I’m concerned.
This. Most people in my experience prefer to live and let live. (Or even openly exchange ideas and perspectives and see it as a good thing.) Militants instead decide that they are the arbiters of how everybody else should live their lives, just like them of course. This is true regardless of belief system, and is uncivil and unethical regardless of belief system. If “choose your own path, and respect the right of others to do the same” is offensive to someone, he is likely militant.
Respect is kind of the key point, here. Not everyone is like said atheist, it’s a fact of life he has to live with whether he likes it or not, so he might as well learn to handle it with some grace. And not stress out about what someone he barely knows might be thinking or doing in private. Aside from being obnoxious to the people around him, that’s just no way to live.
Then please apply the term ‘militant’ to *anyone *who speaks up for their cause.
I still don’t see them going door to door like the Jehova’s witnesses do.
Maybe I was misunderstood. Carl Sagan spoke for his cause but I wouldn’t consider him to be militant atheists: he used a light touch. There are plenty of atheist posters here who are not particularly strident or abrasive.
There’s an adjective that is applied to proselytizing Christians: it’s called evangelical. There’s another applied to evangelicals who knock on people’s doors: I call it, “In your face.” But I wouldn’t apply that last characterization either to Der or Dawkins – at least provided they don’t man tables in front of cathedrals, knock on people’s doors or leave Cthulhu tracts in bus terminals. Then again, maybe the latter wouldn’t be a bad idea.
I’ve left 'em in post office lobbies, in response to a spate of Jack Chick tracts. “Teach the Controversy,” right?
Well, like the OP said, that’s how I would define a “militant atheist”. Someone who isn’t satisfied with simply allowing people to believe what they believe, but must go and ridicule them, to the point of saying that religion should be repressed. I’ve never heard of Dawkins doing so.
Basically, if you’re an asshole, and throw a hissyfit whenever you see someone believing something you don’t, that would be my definition of “militant”. #5 is merely being obnoxious. (And you can easily ignore these types, for the most part)
I don’t think the concept of “separation of church and state” comes into this, because you can be for it no matter what you believe.
Not really. There’s a big difference between speaking up for your belief/lack of belief when the topic is brought up by someone else, and baiting people into talking about their beliefs solely so you can gleefully insist that they’re wrong wrong wrong for believing there is/isn’t a God. Militant theists and atheists both engage in the latter behavior.