Being militant?
Offline Hey guys & gals, I’d like to know what you think about this. I was talking with my girlfriend and her brother (all atheists) and we came upon the topic of my militant atheism. My girlfriend made the comment about how her brother was once just as militant and anti-religious as me, and that she had known several people like that before. I didn’t bring it up then, but it got me wondering, what makes a person stop being militant and just a “normal” atheist? I can’t ever picture myself not hating religion as much as I do now, wanting to rid the earth of it and see people better off for it. I mean, I look around and see all these horrible things going on everyday because of religion. Yes, religion has some goods, but I believe the bads far outweigh those goods. I just don’t get how being “militant” can be a phase. Do people just become apathetic? Do they start believing religion isn’t something they can combat? I’m in no way trying to say anything bad about my less militant friends, I’m just curious.
- Login to post comments
Perhaps its because of the Bystander Effect.
If it ever happens to me I'll let you know.
However, my own guess is that perhaps it could do with frustration - or maybe just being burnt out.
Was he originally christian? Possibly when he deconverted he felt so free from religion that he wanted to spread this feeling to others but once the euphoria wore off he stopped caring. Also people do change over time maybe he lost interest the same way you might lose interest in a hobby. He could have just realized that there is isn't much he can do about it and gave up instead of becoming frustrated. I'm sure there is a reason why he stopped being militant but I am equally sure that there is not one reason for everyone who was once a militant atheist (or anything for that matter) and then stopped.
No, he grew up in a really good liberal Unitarian Universalism household with the "everyone has something constructive on the path to truth" kinda thing. Come to think of it, that might explain a lot. Perhaps growing up in a healthy atmosphere makes you less likely to view religion with resentment.
I just clicked on your user profile and saw that you are a college student. Could your friend have been a militant atheist when he was a teenager? If so it could have been teenage angst.
Well the weird thing is my girlfriend's brother who used to be militant was so when he was 12 or 13. He's now only 16 and he's not militant in the least. He must still deal with the question though because he's extremely active in his UU church.
Great question Medievalguy, but what do you mean by militant?
Please don't take this personally but what if I was to challenge you by saying "What are you going to do, militant boy? Which militia are you a member of? Didn't think so."
Are you or your friend, now or ever truely militant?
Do you define militant as being with regard to opinion and demeanour only, rather than having to have any physical component? Which is fair enough.
Who would want to finish what they have said with the same thing everytime?
The word "militant" has its own discussion history on this site, if I remember. It got started when one of the core members (again, anyone can correct me if I'm wrong) was accused of being a "militant atheist", in the same way that people will call someone a "militant feminist". There's no actual military involved, and no fight. It's just an accusation of aggression from a place of insecurity. (I mean, really: what do you call it other than insecure when someone is visibly threatened by the idea of women getting the same pay as men for work?)
I guarantee that the use of the word to describe atheists is far from the way you might use it. Um ... Sir.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
The tired lie of unequal pay is brought up once again. I don't want to derail the thread but women on average get lower pay because they are less educated and are more likely to have gaps in their employment history and they tend to enter into lower paying fields of work. We live in a system of equal pay for equal work, the thing is women are more likely to perform lower pay work than men.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Hiswillness has it right, it has nothing to do with a militia. It just means I think the world would be better off without religion, and I'm not going to sit around and let the religious control everything, including the debate.
...that the word "militant" has even as much substance as Will seems ready to grant it. As near as I can tell from common usage, the word "militant" is nothing more than an epithet to hurl at someone who dares to disagree with you. Thus, we have "militant feminists," "militant liberals," "militant gays," "militant atheists," and so on. I really think that it's just one more argument-ducking ad hominem, and nothing more.
Conor
Here, a related video for all who are interested.
www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html
Two things. First, what is 'militant'? To me the only sense of the word that makes sense is to try to use violence or the threat of violence, or some other form of coercion, such as passing laws, to force other people to conform to your way of thinking.
In no way do I support any of that. So I'm not 'militant'. However, I am (in my own way) an activist, trying to influence society. I'm just using words and persuasion rather than force and coercion. I'm outspoken. I'm unapologetic. Many people might *call* that 'militant', but in my view it is not.
Second. I think apathy and complacency can come about for a variety of reasons. A major one I experienced in my life is the desire to fit in socially, rather than to be an outcast. At one point, around 13, I decided to compromise and be silent, so people wouldn't ostracize me for atheism. Later, I became more comfortable with the idea and adopted a 'live and let live' attitude, which I considered more constructive than confrontation.
However, a result of that compromise is that I wasn't living my own life, I was putting myself in a box and locking it up. I really *wanted* to talk about religion and irrationality openly, but whenever I got close to that topic, people would get offended and so I would shut up. Essentially, I was living to please other people. I was accepting the constraints that the demonization of atheism had imposed on me.
It was George W. Bush getting elected that started to really piss me off. And then 9/11 was the last straw. I realized just how far people are willing to go to live in delusion. And I could no longer just sit by silently. Later, reading Sam Harris' The End of Faith, I found a kindred spirit, so to speak, and that's about the time I started getting active online.
Well, enough about me. But I thought it would be useful to show that the path to 'militancy' (which I'll hereby start to call outspokenness) goes through stages, and you need to have a certain global perspective of the effects of theism to really reach the point where you are no longer willing to sit by complacently.
I find that another MAJOR reason people are complacent or apathetic is that they feel that they can do absolutely nothing to change the situation. It seems WAY too big for any mere movement of disorganized free thinkers to tackle. I have met so many people who are bright, and they agree that religion sucks and the world would be better without it, but they simply cannot envision anything they do having any lasting effect. In essence, they have resigned themselves to living in a shithole and trying to make the best of it. They regress to lives of wake up, go to work, drink/smoke-up/watch-TV/party/whatever, pass out, wake up, go to work, etc. I've got nothing against having a blast in this life, but I simply see this lifestyle as a prolonged suicide.
Another way people get out of this depressing dilemma is they get into certain kinds of mental masturbation, like post modernism, new age stuff, etc. In essence, they say to themselves, "Well, none of this really matters anyway, so I might as well retreat into fantasy land". Again, this is intellectual suicide, and running away from life.
Unfortunately, it appears to be quite difficult to wake these people up. I think it will require a clear vision of just what exactly is possible. Specifically, they need to be shown that it is indeed possible to change the world with words and democracy. Thankfully, Obama's election is one ray of hope that can be used to inspire (assuming he follows through with some of his promises).
My point is really that certain ideas need to be in people's heads in order to wake them up to reality. #1 Theism/religion sucks hugely. #2 It is possible to actually change things. #3 Specific ways to go about making changes (such as becoming a Rational Responder, teaching/popularizing science, etc.)
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Ugh, i feel the thread got kinda bogged down with semantics. Perhaps "militant" wasn't the best word to choose. Perhaps I'll just stick with "outspoken" as natural put it. I think the apathy idea is closest, which is depressing. Yet it reminds me of the Margaret Mead quote: "Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed citizens to change the world. Indeed, it has never been done otherwise."
I'm having a difficult time figuring out whether you're having me on. Are you joking? Because it's a bit too subtle for me.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
That's pretty much it.
ALTHOUGH
If this is to be treated as "war", then I'm engaged more in espionage than I am in out-and-out field battle. Sneaky suggestions here and there go a long way to make people doubt their worldview, and atheism isn't any different. Maybe it seems like I've become "apathetic", because I don't go looking for a fight. But the opposite is true. I simply have a more solid foundation from which to speak when it comes to the topic of gods and monsters. It's easy to end a "Gays shudn't autta git married" conversation with a quiet, "So that church and state separation thing. We should just get rid of that - is that what you're saying?"
Sigh. Now I'm filled with rage over the American position on gay marriage. Is that militant?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I hold to the thought of "Your not militant unless your using violence"
... so, no more decapitating fundies in front of the girl friend... k?
What Would Kharn Do?
"You're"! For the love of Necrons, "You're not militant ..."
Aw. k.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
For all my atrocious spelling, you bust me on a minor grammer charge? What kind of fuckin forum nazi do you have to b...
Wait, i think im answering my own question again o_O
What Would Kharn Do?
Yup.
Well, considering you're vying for world domination, I'd say we're in direct competition. There are bound to be skirmishes.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
World domination is just a means towards my ends
Once complete, its all yours
What Would Kharn Do?
Anyone reading this might want to take this survey which I thought was pretty relevant to this topic. It's about 'coming out' as an atheist. Survey is here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=FngPf17nsv1PWLSsOzS_2ffw_3d_3d
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Interestingly someone on my mailing list today said that they went from being outspoken to being a live and let live type because they don't see religion as being as danagerous as it was a few years ago.
I was floored.
Whatever - once you're done with it, I probably won't want it. Tell you what: I'll race you to world domination. Whoever gets their own country first wins the first stage.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Do they live in the states? Maybe a liberal city? Maybe they just need a break or something. You don't notice religious ridiculousness as much in liberal cities, where people are really coming out of their shells and being open about atheism. At least that's what I've found.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I'm a "non-militant" atheist. Still not totally sure why, but I think there's a few reasons.
I don't want people think "Atheist" and think of someone who is up in people's faces about it all the time. Giving them anything negative to think about atheists without even going into their religious reasons just closes their mind further. Being antagonistic to them might make you feel smug and superior, but it doesn't do much to persuade them. In fact, it probably just makes them feel smug and superior too. I far prefer being conciliatory and agreeable. Somebody so peaceable and polite that it's hard to characterize me as an enemy. I don't hate, and don't even ask not to be hated in return. The people stupid enough to hate are too stupid to be worth hating. I hated for a while, and I got tired of it. Hating is not the atheist's role, it's the theist's, and playing the hate game with them does nobody any good. I don't want to evict people from their religion, I want to invite them into atheism. I want them to be comfortable in it and I want them to find what they're looking for in it. You don't do this by being militant.
Aside from that, my curiousity leads me in other directions. I want to learn programming and Unix administration. Atheism isn't immediately important to me. There are so many other interesting things in life that I can't stay with just one. For somebody that atheism is extremely and possibly of utmost importance to, it's hard to understand. But I don't think militant atheism has rewards that return on the costs. Hours spent deconverting someone indeconvertible are wasted. My time is worth more than that. Hours spent talking to atheists about things we already know are wasted. My time is worth more than that.
But that's just me.
First, like most of you, I don't like the word militant. I think violence is (and ought to be) the last resort for the intelligent. After all, what good is intelligence if you can't use it to avoid dying or getting yourself hurt trying to accomplish something that could have been done peacefully?
As far as outspoken atheism goes, I think it still ought to be broken down further because I'm both outspoken and reserved. Online and amongst my close friends, I speak openly about religion, but in social situations, I'm usually the last person to bring up the subject. If it is brought up, I tend to say things that are subtle enough to make the point without starting a discussion. If a discussion starts, I usually try to end it. Frankly, I don't think politics or religion are appropriate topics for polite social conversation.
So, we can say that there are people who take every opportunity to "preach" atheism. Or, we can say that there are people who take every opportunity to offend the religious. See? Even among outspoken atheists, there are different motives. For me, I live in the south and run a business. Everybody's my friend when they walk through my doors. I want the religious and the nonreligious, and to that end, I avoid any mention or display of either religion or atheism... cause... well, that's the way I think the world ought to be anyway.
When you ask why someone "calms down" about being outspoken, you're not giving enough information to answer the question.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism