Is it any wonder that anti-theism exists?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Already replied to you - and already linked to it.

Where exactly does Dawkins espouse militant atheism except to get a laugh from his audience, who of course know his opponents regularly accuse him of being a 'militant' atheist and in the context of the anecdote about Darwin and Aveling.

Somehow I suspect you haven't actually read the text of his talk - but hey how much easier to take a couple of quotes out of context and create an impression that the overall talk doesn't give.

His audience is laughing repeatedly throughout the talk so the audience laughing indicates what exactly in your opinion?

You suspect wrong - I read the text of the talk, which is why I copied and pasted from the text and subsequently linked to it to give context to my quotes. What impression is it that you think I have created? Or rather what impression have you formed from your interpretation of my post? Maybe you formed the wrong impression or made an incorrect assumption about the impression you think I was trying to create.

Dawkins espouses rocking the boat, which from reading the text sounds like his interpretation of militant atheism.

You have not answered my question - why don't you quote where you think Dawkins is disapproving of the term 'militant atheism' or thinks it is poisoning the well.

[ProfessorDavey]

His audience is laughing repeatedly throughout the talk so the audience laughing indicates what exactly in your opinion?

That he is making a comment that it intended to be humorous obviously.

His one comment on militant atheism (apart from the reference to Aveling) isn't defining himself as a militant atheist, nor a call to arms to militant atheism. Nope it is a humorous comment based on the fact that he is seen as some kind of evil bogey man by many US theists and accused of being a 'militant ' atheist. He is poking fun at those people and playing to the gallery.

[ProfessorDavey]

You suspect wrong - I read the text of the talk, which is why I copied and pasted from the text and subsequently linked to it to give context to my quotes. What impression is it that you think I have created? Or rather what impression have you formed from your interpretation of my post? Maybe you formed the wrong impression or made an incorrect assumption about the impression you think I was trying to create.

Dawkins espouses rocking the boat, which from reading the text sounds like his interpretation of militant atheism.

He espouses being less polite and apologetic about being atheist. He wants people who are atheist to feel comfortable to say that they are atheist without facing vilification from society, he is espousing people who do not like religion to be able to voice their opinions without being seen as some kind of bogeyman.

That is about as militant as saying that a woman in the early 20thC should be able to say that they think women should be able to vote without being seen as crazed loons and a danger to society. Militant, my foot.

And since when was 'rocking the boat' somehow tantamount to being militant - anyone who opposes the establishment order is rocking the boat, regardless of whether they support militant approaches. To rock the boat by giving a TED talk, militant?!? I mean WTF - last time I looked militants took to the streets with weapons, overthrew establishment institutions with violence and force. They don't give TED talks, ask people to be a tad less polite, suggest they read a few books and perhaps use democracy to make progress.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This is the most amazing bit of quote mining I've seen in quite a while - trying to imply that these highly selected quotes taken entirely put of context suggest Dawkins to be aggressively whipping up a militant atheist agenda (whatever that means).

I have not suggested Dawkins is "whipping" up anything. You used the word "whipping", not me so I suggest you don't attribute something to me that I never said. The whole point of my quotes was to say that in the TED talk Dawkins does not suggest that militant atheism is violent or extreme or dangerous. He seems to be using the term 'militant' as part of his language of being at war and as you suggested, which I agree with, you can be at war with an idea or a lobby without being considered violent or dangerous or extreme.

Read the entire talk:

https://ted2srt.org/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism

Dawkins only uses the word 'militant' twice - once for a laugh (which is your selected quote, but you failed to indicate it was meant to be humorous), and secondly as part of an anecdote about a person who lived in the 19thC.

And most of the rest of the talk is about levelling the playing field - in other words creating a society in which being atheist is no more or less acceptable than being christian or republican or a Windows user.

Again you are making incorrect assumptions - I did read the entire talk. I think you are misinterpreting the way Dawkins uses the term 'militant atheism'. The anecdote about the person living in the 19th Century - Darwin and Aveling - was important so not sure why you are pretending it is not relevant to this discussion. Dawkins described Aveling as a militant atheist. Can you provide a quote to say that Dawkins disapproved of Aveling for being a militant atheist or thought Aveling did anything violent because of his militant atheism? As far as I can see from the transcript Dawkins does not see militant atheism as suggesting violence but considers it rocking the boat. How are you analysing the following part of the TED talk? Dawkins says as follows:

"He [Darwin] even became uncharacteristically tetchy with Edward Aveling. Aveling was a militant atheist who failed to persuade Darwin to accept the dedication of his book on atheism -- incidentally, giving rise to a fascinating myth that Karl Marx tried to dedicate "Das Kapital" to Darwin, which he didn't, it was actually Edward Aveling. What happened was that Aveling's mistress was Marx's daughter, and when both Darwin and Marx were dead, Marx's papers became muddled up with Aveling's papers, and a letter from Darwin saying, "My dear sir, thank you very much but I don't want you to dedicate your book to me," was mistakenly supposed to be addressed to Marx, and that gave rise to this whole myth, which you've probably heard. It's a sort of urban myth, that Marx tried to dedicate "Kapital" to Darwin.


21:30
Anyway, it was Aveling, and when they met, Darwin challenged Aveling. "Why do you call yourselves atheists?" "'Agnostic, '" retorted Aveling, "was simply 'atheist' writ respectable, and 'atheist' was simply 'agnostic' writ aggressive." Darwin complained, "But why should you be so aggressive?" Darwin thought that atheism might be well and good for the intelligentsia, but that ordinary people were not, quote, "ripe for it." Which is, of course, our old friend, the "don't rock the boat" argument. It's not recorded whether Aveling told Darwin to come down off his high horse.


22:14
(Laughter)


22:16
But in any case, that was more than 100 years ago. You'd think we might have grown up since then.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That he is making a comment that it intended to be humorous obviously.

His one comment on militant atheism (apart from the reference to Aveling) isn't defining himself as a militant atheist, nor a call to arms to militant atheism. Nope it is a humorous comment based on the fact that he is seen as some kind of evil bogey man by many US theists and accused of being a 'militant ' atheist. He is poking fun at those people and playing to the gallery.

He is urging atheists to become militant atheists and illustrating his request by referring to someone whom he labels a militant atheist, who as far as I can tell was a teacher and an author and not a violent person. Which part of that indicates that he thinks militant atheism is violent?

[ProfessorDavey]

You have not answered my question - why don't you quote where you think Dawkins is disapproving of the term 'militant atheism' or thinks it is poisoning the well.

I never claimed that so there is no onus on me to provide any quote to that effect.

You on the other had ruthlessly quote mined to give the impression that in the TED talk Dawkins applies the term militant atheist to himself rather than implying that others apply to him (he never does) and that it is somehow a call to arms for militant atheism (it isn't) unless you think that being able to feely state what your belief and opinions are is somehow a militant action.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

He espouses being less polite and apologetic about being atheist. He wants people who are atheist to feel comfortable to say that they are atheist without facing vilification from society, he is espousing people who do not like religion to be able to voice their opinions without being seen as some kind of bogeyman.

That is about as militant as saying that a woman in the early 20thC should be able to say that they think women should be able to vote without being seen as crazed loons and a danger to society. Militant, my foot.

And since when was 'rocking the boat' somehow tantamount to being militant - anyone who opposes the establishment order is rocking the boat, regardless of whether they support militant approaches. To rock the boat by giving a TED talk, militant?!? I mean WTF - last time I looked militants took to the streets with weapons, overthrew establishment institutions with violence and force. They don't give TED talks, ask people to be a tad less polite, suggest they read a few books and perhaps use democracy to make progress.

I suggest you take it up with Dawkins - he is the person who seems to be using the term 'militant atheism' in a way where it does not mean violence and force. But as I have already asked you to analyse what he said, break it down, to show where he thinks militant atheism is an atheist who uses force and violence, I will wait for you to respond to that request.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I never claimed that so there is no onus on me to provide any quote to that effect.

You on the other had ruthlessly quote mined to give the impression that in the TED talk Dawkins applies the term militant atheist to himself rather than implying that others apply to him (he never does) and that it is somehow a call to arms for militant atheism (it isn't) unless you think that being able to feely state what your belief and opinions are is somehow a militant action.

Ok so you don't have evidence that Dawkins thinks that using the term 'militant atheist' is poisoning the well. I will leave it to Dawkins' own words to create an impression to the people who read it. You will have to ask Dawkins to confirm the impression he intended to create with his words.

[ProfessorDavey]

He is urging atheists to become militant atheists and illustrating his request by referring to someone who labels a militant atheist, who as far as I can tell was a teacher and an author and not a violent person. Which part of that indicates that he thinks militant atheism is violent?

Maybe you should read up a little more on Edward Aveling - he was a revolutionary marxist who believed in the revolutionary overthrow of the established orders by whatever means was necessary as per the views of his friends Karl Marx (he translated Das Capital into English and married his daughter) and Engels. And of course from that tradition comes the genuine militant atheist movements of the early 20thC, particularly in the USSR.

But of course all Dawkins is doing in his anecdote is repeating Aveling's view that a person shouldn't feel they have to call themselves agnostic rather than atheist out of politeness and to seem respectable. Plus of course to be able to recount an entertaining anecdote about Aveling, Darwin and Marx.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok so you don't have evidence that Dawkins thinks that using the term 'militant atheist' is poisoning the well.

I haven't found a single example where Dawkins has described himself as a militant atheist (perhaps he does somewhere but it isn't obvious) - opponents often describe him as a militant atheist, and he often says that he is accused of being a militant atheist.

Surely you can enlighten us Gabriella and provide examples where Dawkins describes himself as a militant atheist.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok so you don't have evidence that Dawkins thinks that using the term 'militant atheist' is poisoning the well.

On poisoning the well - much of the talk is about opponents using atheist, and by extension militant atheist, as a derogatory term - poisoning the well, so to speak. Hence:

'Creationists, lacking any coherent scientific argument for their case, fall back on the popular phobia against atheism: Teach your children evolution in biology class, and they'll soon move on to drugs, grand larceny and sexual "pre-version."'

The tenor of the talk is effectively to claim back the term atheism - to use an analogy - he is a gay man espousing that other gay men should feel confident to say 'I'm out and I'm proud'. Is a gay man who able to state that he is out and proud a militant? I don't think so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

A few years ago I remember seeing a news piece with a covertly recorded video clip from inside a mosque where a fruit loop speaker was exhorting his audience to all manner of violent actions. What struck me though was that all his ire was aimed at atheists, expressly so in fact. No doubt he had issues with believers in other faiths, but for him not believing in a god at all was utterly beyond the pale. They (we) were the real enemy so far as he was concerned – he seemed pretty happy about calling for a fatwah against them too. I guess in part at least that’s what you get when you demonise atheists with inappropriate language like “militant”: “Hey, if they’re militant about us we should be militant about them first right? Grab your weapons boys!”

Clearly it would be more accurate to use terms like, “committed”, "strongly held”, “polemical” etc but where’s the fun in that when you can blithely use a term instead that also includes all manner of armed violence?

       

[ProfessorDavey]

A few years ago I remember seeing a news piece with a covertly recorded video clip from inside a mosque where a fruit loop speaker was exhorting his audience to all manner of violent actions. What struck me though was that all his ire was aimed at atheists, expressly so in fact. No doubt he had issues with believers in other faiths, but for him not believing in a god at all was utterly beyond the pale. They (we) were the real enemy so far as he was concerned – he seemed pretty happy about calling for a fatwah against them too. I guess in part at least that’s what you get when you demonise atheists with inappropriate language like “militant”: “Hey, if they’re militant about us we should be militant about them first right? Grab your weapons boys!”

Clearly it would be more accurate to use terms like, “committed”, "strongly held”, “polemical” etc but where’s the fun in that when you can blithely use a term instead that also includes all manner of armed violence?

But that is, of course, the whole point - to equate the words 'extreme', 'militant' etc as being the same when applied to atheist as well as being applied to religious extremists. 'Look there go the militant atheists, they are just the same as the militant islamists'.

It is a classic trope used to portray perfectly reasonable views and behaviours as somehow extreme and dangerous.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Maybe you should read up a little more on Edward Aveling - he was a revolutionary marxist who believed in the revolutionary overthrow of the established orders by whatever means was necessary as per the views of his friends Karl Marx (he translated Das Capital into English and married his daughter) and Engels. And of course from that tradition comes the genuine militant atheist movements of the early 20thC, particularly in the USSR.

But of course all Dawkins is doing in his anecdote is repeating Aveling's view that a person shouldn't feel they have to call themselves agnostic rather than atheist out of politeness and to seem respectable. Plus of course to be able to recount an entertaining anecdote about Aveling, Darwin and Marx.

Do you have any evidence that Aveling was violent or not? More importantly do you have any evidence that Aveling was violently promoting atheism or not? Currently my impression is that Dawkins, an atheist, was labelling another atheist, who had not committed violence, a militant atheist. If you can show that Dawkins was aware of violence committed by Aveling in the promotion of atheism and that is why he called Aveling a militant, then please present it and I will change my opinion. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That he is making a comment that it intended to be humorous obviously.

His one comment on militant atheism (apart from the reference to Aveling) isn't defining himself as a militant atheist, nor a call to arms to militant atheism. Nope it is a humorous comment based on the fact that he is seen as some kind of evil bogey man by many US theists and accused of being a 'militant ' atheist. He is poking fun at those people and playing to the gallery.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that he was inviting people to be militant atheists without inviting them to be violent.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you have any evidence that Aveling was violent or not? More importantly do you have any evidence that Aveling was violently promoting atheism or not? Currently my impression is that Dawkins, an atheist, was labelling another atheist, who had not committed violence, a militant atheist. If you can show that Dawkins was aware of violence committed by Aveling in the promotion of atheism and that is why he called Aveling a militant, then please present it and I will change my opinion.

I don't believe Aveling was personally violent but he was an active and founding member of a variant of movements that subscribed to the classic marxist view that revolutionary methods, including violence if necessary were justified in meeting their revolutionary ends. And of course many marxist and communist revolutions did just that.

Alongside the standard marxist approach developed a more specific militant atheist movement in the late 19thC (look it up), that specifically espoused revolutionary means to remove religion from marxist societies as religion was seen as one of the pillars of the established order that needed to be toppled.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I haven't found a single example where Dawkins has described himself as a militant atheist (perhaps he does somewhere but it isn't obvious) - opponents often describe him as a militant atheist, and he often says that he is accused of being a militant atheist.

Surely you can enlighten us Gabriella and provide examples where Dawkins describes himself as a militant atheist.

Let me know when you have had a chat with him and he can explain why he urged his audience to become militant atheists. If the term really is universally understood to mean violent atheists and he was recorded encouraging people to use violence to promote atheism I imagine encouraging violence would have got him in trouble with the authorities.

On the other hand, if people don't automatically associate militant atheism with violence it would explain why, as far as I know, he did not get into trouble for inciting violence. Unless you have evidence to the contrary and he was censured for encouraging violence? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't believe Aveling was personally violent but he was an active and founding member of a variant of movements that subscribed to the classic marxist view that revolutionary methods, including violence if necessary were justified in meeting their revolutionary ends. And of course many marxist and communist revolutions did just that.

Alongside the standard marxist approach developed a more specific militant atheist movement in the late 19thC (look it up), that specifically espoused revolutionary means to remove religion from marxist societies as religion was seen as one of the pillars of the established order that needed to be toppled.

Well surely the important point is to establish whether Aveling was violent in the promotion of atheism since we are discussing the militant atheism label rather than political labels. I have not seen any evidence that Aveling used violence to promote his atheism.

Did he commit violence in promotion of his Marxism?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

On poisoning the well - much of the talk is about opponents using atheist, and by extension militant atheist, as a derogatory term - poisoning the well, so to speak. Hence:

'Creationists, lacking any coherent scientific argument for their case, fall back on the popular phobia against atheism: Teach your children evolution in biology class, and they'll soon move on to drugs, grand larceny and sexual "pre-version."'

The tenor of the talk is effectively to claim back the term atheism - to use an analogy - he is a gay man espousing that other gay men should feel confident to say 'I'm out and I'm proud'. Is a gay man who able to state that he is out and proud a militant? I don't think so.

So in explaining my opinion that 'militant' does not necessarily mean violent, I link to a Christian website that calls for people to become militant Christians while not espousing violence and you responded that it's ok for Christians to call themselves militant Christians and for it to mean non-violence, however it's problematic for theists to describe atheists as militant atheists as they are trying to imply atheists are violent.

I then link t Dawkins, an atheist, apparently not having a problem with describing a seemingly non-violent atheist as a militant atheist, and urging a room full of non-violent people to pursue militant atheism (presumably not violently and therefore in a similar way to the militant Christian example) and you say he is claiming back the term atheism. I have no idea where you are going with the 'claiming back'  argument but can you or can you not post some evidence that Dawkins thought the term "militant atheism" in his TED talk means violent atheism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I often wonder if the predilection of atheists not to be labelled or indeed classified is motivated by the same impulse which makes the guilty not properly identify themselves.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I often wonder if the predilection of atheists not to be labelled or indeed classified is motivated by the same impulse which makes the guilty not properly identify themselves.

No you don't often wonder that, and it's the improper labelling that's the problem.

One might equally "often wonder" why the need to label atheists with a term commonly used for violent behaviour when perfectly appropriate terms that don't serve to poison the well are available for what they actually do.   

One might also wonder why the people who do that nonetheless don't also feel the need to do it for those who argue just as well and as commitedly for positions that don't threaten their religious convictions - politics for example. Is an MP who makes a passionate speech with no call to arms whatsoever also "militant" or just, well, passionate?

Funny thing about poisoning the well - people who do it don't like the label of doing it.     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

A few years ago I remember seeing a news piece with a covertly recorded video clip from inside a mosque where a fruit loop speaker was exhorting his audience to all manner of violent actions. What struck me though was that all his ire was aimed at atheists, expressly so in fact. No doubt he had issues with believers in other faiths, but for him not believing in a god at all was utterly beyond the pale. They (we) were the real enemy so far as he was concerned – he seemed pretty happy about calling for a fatwah against them too. I guess in part at least that’s what you get when you demonise atheists with inappropriate language like “militant”: “Hey, if they’re militant about us we should be militant about them first right? Grab your weapons boys!”

Clearly it would be more accurate to use terms like, “committed”, "strongly held”, “polemical” etc but where’s the fun in that when you can blithely use a term instead that also includes all manner of armed violence?
     

Do you have a link? Did the speaker use the term 'militant atheist'? Did he accuse the atheists of violence in promotion of atheism or violence in pursuit of oil or land or give some detail about what violence he was accusing atheists of?

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Do you have a link? Did the speaker use the term 'militant atheist'? Did he accuse the atheists of violence in promotion of atheism or violence in pursuit of oil or land or give some detail about what violence he was accusing atheists of?

No, I was making a different point – namely the (to me) odd phenomenon of a religious nut job being more upset by atheists than he was by subscribers to other religions. Why do you suppose that was?   

[ProfessorDavey]

So in explaining my opinion that 'militant' does not necessarily mean violent, I link to a Christian website that calls for people to become militant Christians while not espousing violence and you responded that it's ok for Christians to call themselves militant Christians and for it to mean non-violence, however it's problematic for theists to describe atheists as militant atheists as they are trying to imply atheists are violent.

I then link t Dawkins, an atheist, apparently not having a problem with describing a seemingly non-violent atheist as a militant atheist, and urging a room full of non-violent people to pursue militant atheism (presumably not violently and therefore in a similar way to the militant Christian example) and you say he is claiming back the term atheism. I have no idea where you are going with the 'claiming back'  argument but can you or can you not post some evidence that Dawkins thought the term "militant atheism" in his TED talk means violent atheism?

I fully accept that 'militant' does not necessarily equate to violent, but it must include some elements that would typically be considered within the arsenal of militant actions, which could include (in support of a goal):

Actual violence

Threat of violence

Non violent civil disobedience - e.g. breaking of the law

Confrontational action - e.g. picketing your opponents premises, places of work (or worship etc), sending threatening letters

Mass demonstrations, with or without civil disobedience or violence

Deliberate infiltration of other/opponent organisation in order to take them over

Refusal to fulfil duties - e.g. strike action, work to rule etc

Aggressive/confrontational behaviour towards opponents

All of these might be considered to be militant actions. None of these apply to Dawkins, nor as far as I'm aware does he promote or advocate any of these. He writes books and articles, participates in debates and voices his opinions in a manner that is unerringly polite and 'academic' in manner.

Please explain exactly which of his actions are consistent with the term 'militant' and make sure that you are being consistent so that anyone else, with any other views, using those actions would also be considered 'militant'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

No, I was making a different point – namely the (to me) odd phenomenon of a religious nut job being more upset by atheists than he was by subscribers to other religions. Why do you suppose that was?

Well I can't speak for the religious nut job, having not had an opportunity to hear what he said.

I also have no data as evidence. Did you want an anecdote or just pure speculation without the anecdote?