What is Militant Atheism?

[bernee51]

In another thread a poster wrote: "Militant atheists are stealing people's hope, ..."

I have never been able to find out precisely what militant atheism is. I only know that people are described as a militant atheists if they dare to express sentiments that fail to show the deferential submissiveness traditionally accorded to religion, religious beliefs, and religious believers. Whenever a minority (which is often despised by members of a majority) tries to stand up and assert its equal dignity and rights, some members of the privileged majority will react with horror at the rudeness and intolerance. They are so accustomed to be treated as special that any attempt to deny this is perceived as a terrible insult.

Perhaps this attitude is what leads to so much of the arrogant and condescending accusations which many theists keep repeating about non-believers - all of which have been leveled, at one time or another, at atheists on this forum: we can't be moral, we can't having meaning in life, we can't appreciate love or beauty, we have empty holes in our lives, etc. It would seem such accusations are born out of fear. It allows the one making the accusation feel better about themselves because at least they don't have such a horrible existence like those poor atheists.

So is an atheist militant purely because they dare to question the belief systems that have long felt they hold a position of privilege?

[Openmind]

MikeH, I completely understand your position, because I once thought as you do. I thought - "It's possible for people to be militant Christians" - that is people acting aggressively due to their beliefs, so why isn't it possible for people to be "militant atheists" - acting violently due to disbelief.

But, when you consider it on a deeper level, you will find that it is logically impossible. Not because:

"\atheism', unlike 'catholocism', doesn't tie people together"

(Darren)

But because atheism is not a belief system! Atheism is a lack of belief. A common misconception is that atheism is somehow an assertive, positive position - "I know that there are no Gods and I believe that there are no Gods". To say that implies that one knows everything about the universe (including the nature of its origin). I find this position intellectually indefensible, and a tad arrogant (in the non-mendacious, quite possibly sub-conscious manner.) All an atheist can rationally say is "I lack belief - I reserve my right to believe". Think of it as a clean slate. We are all born essentially empty of beliefs, and beliefs are then impressioned into us as we develop. Thus - people adopt the religion most strongly pushed onto them.

I don't think any of the commonly touted "atheist mass-murderers" (Zedong, Pol Pot, Hitler...I reserve belief on his religiosity!, and Stalin) did what they did because they "lacked belief in God", and when phrased as such, it seems silly to believe that it was their sole motivation. Surely, they did not respect religion, but that is not an immediate indicator that their passive, lack of belief in Gods, was the cause.

By this definition I could argue that Westboro Baptist Church are not militant Christians, and that their actions do not come from their belief in God, but in their active hatred of gays. But I will not argue this.

Yes, you could argue that. And you would be justified. But on what basis do they hate gays? Who tells them to hate gays, and how do they justify that hatred? God.

Does Stalin justify his exclusive communism through atheism? It is non-sensical to assume he does. "I despise religion because I lack belief in Gods". That is hardly the cause. The cause is believing that religion is bad for society, and must be removed. That is anti-theism, an entirely different reason. I see no problem with militant anti-theists, and they surely exist. But atheism does not imply anti-theism.