Is it any wonder that anti-theism exists?

[Owlswing]

I've presented my case. I've said enough to demonstrate my point and I've had not one single argument. Until someone comes up with an argument that can define a god or that can give me some real reason for me to think I'm the one making the error I don't see any point in labouring the subject. I usually do this right off when joining a new forum. No one has ever presented any real argument or even came forward to define god other than to give an abridged dictionary listing which excludes most of the examples of gods given without reason.

I'll tell you what else you have done - you have writhed and wriggled like a snake in a rat-trap trying to define 'GOD' and have thus given an almost perfect proof of my titling of this thread!

While speaking to you I might as well point out to you that I am, by way of religious belief a Pagan, a Pagan, Priest and Witch and the deities of my Coven are Ceridwen (Goddess) and Cernunnos (God).

I do not have any proof that these deities exist - their existence is, as I have posted before, (before your arrival) a matter of faith and not of fact.

As far as I and the majority of Witches, including those in the good ol' U S of A, are concerned that faith is as great and as real as that of Christians, just that we do not claim to have any proof that they exist.

Owlswing

)O(

Bright Blessings, Love and Light and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.

 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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

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'.

I can only go by the usage that I am familiar with. I don't think it's just me who doesn't pigeon-hole the word militant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant

If I hear the term Islamic militant I think of someone with a weapon prepared to commit violence - either as aggressor or in self-defence.

If I hear militant Muslim it's more ambiguous - they might have a weapon or they could just be out robustly promoting Islam in a confrontational but a non-violent way trying to ensure that their particular interpretation has special privileges in society.  If they are non-violent I imagine they are probably still being shouty and literalist in the way they go about their activism, and commit a lot of their time and energy to their cause.

A Christian militant again evokes a image of a person with a weapon. A militant Christian could be tooled up or it could be someone non-violent and promoting their cause in a robust but non-violent way, again trying to ensure that their particular interpretation has special privileges in society, and committing a lot of their time and energy to their cause.

An atheist militant - I would probably think of a weapon but then would struggle to define their cause as atheists need to oppose all theists in order to be atheists, rather than targeting a specific religious denomination. So they would have to blow up a multi-faith   event for it to be against all theists rather than anti-Protestant or anti-Muslim etc

But a militant atheist would make me think of someone robustly and proactively opposing theism in a non-violent way and committing a lot of their time and energy to their cause of trying to convert more people to an atheist outlook.

If Dawkins, as an atheist, clarifies what he meant when he used the term while he urged his audience of atheists to militant atheism, maybe you would be less sensitive about it. It sounds like he was urging people to be more committed to robustly challenging the perceived societal pressure to be reticent or not be forward about their atheist outlook. And he was asking them to  push back against or oppose those theists who want to maintain their special privileges or who want others to treat their belief in god in a sacred way.

I don't use the term militant atheism myself.  I don't have a problem discussing theism with most atheists I come across as I can see where they are coming from, having been one myself. I might have a problem with their demeanour or their personality or the way they articulate their views but not with their atheism.

[ProfessorDavey]

I can only go by the usage that I am familiar with. I don't think it's just me who doesn't pigeon-hole the word militant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant

If I hear the term Islamic militant I think of someone with a weapon prepared to commit violence - either as aggressor or in self-defence.

If I hear militant Muslim it's more ambiguous - they might have a weapon or they could just be out robustly promoting Islam in a confrontational but a non-violent way trying to ensure that their particular interpretation has special privileges in society.  If they are non-violent I imagine they are probably still being shouty and literalist in the way they go about their activism, and commit a lot of their time and energy to their cause.

A Christian militant again evokes a image of a person with a weapon. A militant Christian could be tooled up or it could be someone non-violent and promoting their cause in a robust but non-violent way, again trying to ensure that their particular interpretation has special privileges in society, and committing a lot of their time and energy to their cause.

An atheist militant - I would probably think of a weapon but then would struggle to define their cause as atheists need to oppose all theists in order to be atheists, rather than targeting a specific religious denomination. So they would have to blow up a multi-faith   event for it to be against all theists rather than anti-Protestant or anti-Muslim etc

Surely the word must relate to the nature of the action not the nature of the cause, or you are just special pleading.

So you cannot (without being accused of double standards) describe someone who acts in a particular manner for a cause you support as 'robust' or 'committed', yet label someone using exactly the same type of actions as 'militant' or 'extreme'. That is just adding a layer of pejorative bias.

So unless you'd be comfortable to describe someone who acts in a similar manner to Dawkins in support of, for example, environmentalism (e.g. David Attenborough - also unerringly polite and with great media presence in support of a cause) or christianity (e.g. Giles Fraser - again regular and 'robust' debater, but not overtly confrontational) as 'militant' then it is inappropriate to can Dawkins as such unless you are engaged in pejorative disassembling of him on the basis that you don't like his cause.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't use the term militant atheism myself.

Yet you seem rather obsessed with it, given that you've spent ages on this thread talking about it in relation to a 30 minute talk by Dawkins in which the word is used just twice, and in neither case did he indicate he considered himself as such, nor was it mentioned in either the introduction nor the conclusion of the talk.

[ProfessorDavey]

If Dawkins, as an atheist, clarifies what he meant when he used the term while he urged his audience of atheists to militant atheism, maybe you would be less sensitive about it.

From the talk I think he means it is a pejorative term he is accused of being by opponents when just accusing him of being an atheist isn't sufficient for his perceived bogeyman status - hence his joke in the middle of the talk.

[ProfessorDavey]

It sounds like he was urging people to be more committed to robustly challenging the perceived societal pressure to be reticent or not be forward about their atheist outlook. And he was asking them to  push back against or oppose those theists who want to maintain their special privileges or who want others to treat their belief in god in a sacred way.

Which isn't a militant position in the slightest, any more than suggesting women or black people might speak up a little more about the special privileges afforded to men and white people.

It could be a militant position if he espoused militant actions of the types I listed, but he doesn't.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yet you seem rather obsessed with it, given that you've spent ages on this thread talking about it in relation to a 30 minute talk by Dawkins in which the word is used just twice, and in neither case did he indicate he considered himself as such, nor was it mentioned in either the introduction nor the conclusion of the talk.

That's a bit like saying atheists are obsessed with religion because they spend so much time on this forum discussing it.

I have an opinion. I have some time on my hands. I was too busy to come on the forum before. I can't go out to socialise with other households because of the Tier 2 lockdown. I even watched Paddington and Paddington 2. Now I'm on a discussion forum having a discussion with you because you are having a discussion with me. If you're so sensitive about the time people spend discussing things on discussion forums maybe this forum is not the best place for you?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Surely the word must relate to the nature of the action not the nature of the cause, or you are just special pleading.

So you cannot (without being accused of double standards) describe someone who acts in a particular manner for a cause you support as 'robust' or 'committed', yet label someone using exactly the same type of actions as 'militant' or 'extreme'. That is just adding a layer of pejorative bias.

So unless you'd be comfortable to describe someone who acts in a similar manner to Dawkins in support of, for example, environmentalism (e.g. David Attenborough - also unerringly polite and with great media presence in support of a cause) or christianity (e.g. Giles Fraser - again regular and 'robust' debater, but not overtly confrontational) as 'militant' then it is inappropriate to can Dawkins as such unless you are engaged in pejorative disassembling of him on the basis that you don't like his cause.

As I explained - I think militant the noun sounds violent. I think militant the adjective is ambiguous. Militant the adjective could just indicate robust, resilient, active, fervent, committed to a cause or it could indicate violence. I have no idea if Richard Dawkins' definition of militant atheism includes the actions in your list. Only he can tell what actions he had would consider militant atheism.

ETA: Maybe Dawkins was using militant to mean controversial. Un which case that could apply to Attenborough's views on population control eg. his view that it is barmy to say we should get the UN to send bags of flour to starving people in Ethiopia. His opponents say it is somewhat racist to blame large populations of starving Africans for climate change when the majority of environmental problems are caused by the carbon footprint of technology and fossil fuel use of wealthy countries.

[Aruntraveller]

I'm a gay militant.

My weapon of choice is glitter.

Ok it doesn't kill anybody, but they have to spend the rest of their lives cleaning the carpet.

[ippy]

As I explained - I think militant the noun sounds violent. I think militant the adjective is ambiguous. Militant the adjective could just indicate robust, resilient, active, fervent, committed to a cause or it could indicate violence. I have no idea if Richard Dawkins' definition of militant atheism includes the actions in your list. Only he can tell what actions he had would consider militant atheism.

ETA: Maybe Dawkins was using militant to mean controversial. Un which case that could apply to Attenborough's views on population control eg. his view that it is barmy to say we should get the UN to send bags of flour to starving people in Ethiopia. His opponents say it is somewhat racist to blame large populations of starving Africans for climate change when the majority of environmental problems are caused by the carbon footprint of technology and fossil fuel use of wealthy countries.

Gabriella, if you were to take a look at the UK National Secular Society's site and take note of the rather large amount of unwarranted privileges the various religions have such as:

A now fortunately a gradually diminishing privilege, the free bussing of children to religion based schools outside of their area and this privilege isn't available for children surrounded by religion based schools that would like to have the free bussing privilege to a more secular school outside of their area.

This only one of so many privileges the religious believers have, so if we non-religious people like so many of us Secular Humanists, do get a little bit rattled by some of these many privileges, perhaps you might be more inclined to understand that the ones you think of as militant are more than likely to be holding back than being aggressive.

Oh yes every time secularists campaign go against any of the many religion based PRIVILEGES, the religious believers more often than not start screaming persecution when it's the privilege that's being campaigned against not the religion itself.

Everyone should enjoy religious freedom and freedom from religion as well!

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

Gabriella, if you were to take a look at the UK National Secular Society's site and take note of the rather large amount of unwarranted privileges the various religions have such as:

A now fortunately a gradually diminishing privilege, the free bussing of children to religion based schools outside of their area and this privilege isn't available for children surrounded by religion based schools that would like to have the free bussing privilege to a more secular school outside of their area.

This only one of so many privileges the religious believers have, so if we non-religious people like so many of us Secular Humanists, do get a little bit rattled by some of these many privileges, perhaps you might be more inclined to understand that the ones you think of as militant are more than likely to be holding back than being aggressive.

Oh yes every time secularists campaign go against any of the many religion based PRIVILEGES, the religious believers more often than not start screaming persecution when it's the privilege that's being campaigned against not the religion itself.

Everyone should enjoy religious freedom and freedom from religion as well!

ippy

And it is a common trope for those who are trying to level a playing field to be accused of being militant or extreme by those who benefit from the special privileges an uneven playing file provides.

We've seen this accusation thrown at those campaigning for equality for women, and equality for black people, and equality for gay people ... and in this context equality for those who are not religious. But dare to 'rock the boat' (in other words not being prepared to accept an uneven status quo) and you are accused of being militant and extreme, regardless of how reasonable your request may be, how polite you are in making your request or how democratic your approach to achieving it may be.

[SusanDoris]

Well said, ippy and Prof D.

[ippy]

And it is a common trope for those who are trying to level a playing field to be accused of being militant or extreme by those who benefit from the special privileges an uneven playing file provides.

We've seen this accusation thrown at those campaigning for equality for women, and equality for black people, and equality for gay people ... and in this context equality for those who are not religious. But dare to 'rock the boat' (in other words not being prepared to accept an uneven status quo) and you are accused of being militant and extreme, regardless of how reasonable your request may be, how polite you are in making your request or how democratic your approach to achieving it may be.

No wonder the religionists don't like the way secularism works against their privileges that much, when they are still getting away with things like a not exactly insignificant long term privilege such as the heavily subsidised, virtually free of charge recruitment service supplied and paid for by the state via our schooling system.

I suppose you could describe secularism as militant secularism when it objects to the large scale subsidies given with an apparent open hand to, in the case of the UK, to the C of E. 

ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm a gay militant.

My weapon of choice is glitter.

Ok it doesn't kill anybody, but they have to spend the rest of their lives cleaning the carpet.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella, if you were to take a look at the UK National Secular Society's site and take note of the rather large amount of unwarranted privileges the various religions have such as:

A now fortunately a gradually diminishing privilege, the free bussing of children to religion based schools outside of their area and this privilege isn't available for children surrounded by religion based schools that would like to have the free bussing privilege to a more secular school outside of their area.

This only one of so many privileges the religious believers have, so if we non-religious people like so many of us Secular Humanists, do get a little bit rattled by some of these many privileges, perhaps you might be more inclined to understand that the ones you think of as militant are more than likely to be holding back than being aggressive.

Oh yes every time secularists campaign go against any of the many religion based PRIVILEGES, the religious believers more often than not start screaming persecution when it's the privilege that's being campaigned against not the religion itself.

Everyone should enjoy religious freedom and freedom from religion as well!

ippy

I don't think it is militant to fight against religious privileges. It depends on how you go about it. As atheists have correctly said, they are not a homogenous group and their manner of expressing their atheist views differs. I don't use the term militant atheism so I was not inclined to think about militant atheism until it was brought up in this thread.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And it is a common trope for those who are trying to level a playing field to be accused of being militant or extreme by those who benefit from the special privileges an uneven playing file provides.

We've seen this accusation thrown at those campaigning for equality for women, and equality for black people, and equality for gay people ... and in this context equality for those who are not religious. But dare to 'rock the boat' (in other words not being prepared to accept an uneven status quo) and you are accused of being militant and extreme, regardless of how reasonable your request may be, how polite you are in making your request or how democratic your approach to achieving it may be.

Based on Dawkins' TED talk, militant atheism to him seems about being outspoken. Dawkins can be described as confrontational, outspoken and blunt - I remember reading about a Tweet where he said in reference to a theoretical scenario of a foetus with Downs Syndrome "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

Dawkins has been known for being similarly blunt and confrontational about various topics, including religions. Any internet search will reveal his various pronouncements on Judaism, Islam, Christianity. I have no problem with Dawkins expressing his opinions and would defend his right to express them, but not sure people would describe them as necessarily being polite.

[ippy]

Based on Dawkins' TED talk, militant atheism to him seems about being outspoken. Dawkins can be described as confrontational, outspoken and blunt - I remember reading about a Tweet where he said in reference to a theoretical scenario of a foetus with Downs Syndrome "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."

Dawkins has been known for being similarly blunt and confrontational about various topics, including religions. Any internet search will reveal his various pronouncements on Judaism, Islam, Christianity. I have no problem with Dawkins expressing his opinions and would defend his right to express them, but not sure people would describe them as necessarily being polite.

My wife and I have crossed swords with religious authority in the past and as a consequence of their, rather none too polite, ways we're more inclined to appreciate R D's direct approach, even so I'm sure there are many more that have had to suffer far more indignities than we have still it's good to see him putting in some balancing of the books as long it doesn't involve anything physical, which in his case it doesn't.

I do feel It's about time the nonreligious, now the majority here in the UK, view was put to the religious bluntly without pulling one single punch.

I don't entirely agree with his view on downs but there are things like Huntington's disease, even then perhaps genetic engineering would be a good thing there, this is a very debatable area of course.

ippy.