Origins of popular Atheism?

[apothanein kerdos]

Then you haven't dealt with their works.

...But I have.

A militant atheist is someone who takes a pro-active move to remove any religion, specifically Christianity, from the culture.

Do you consider pressing for church-state separation to be militant? ...I consider it to be patriotic.

I probably shouldn't be surprised you're defending atheism, but yet, I am.

There is a difference between wanting to make sure religion doesn't dictate the government or vice versa and wanting to remove Christianity from the culture. Of them all, Dawkins is by far the worse. He makes an attempt to say that teaching your children any form of religion is wrong. You have Singer teaching it's okay to kill children outside of the womb. Don't fool yourself, these men don't want separation of church and state - they want religion destroyed and they're taking a proactive stance on it. By saying that teaching religion is child abuse, they're introducing the idea that we should ban parents from doing so. By saying a simple Sunday School is the equivalent to a terrorist training camp, they introduce the idea that we should monitor such people. That's oppression, not separation of Church and state.

[The Lorax]

I probably shouldn't be surprised you're defending atheism, but yet, I am.

I'm not defending atheism from anything except a meaningless cliche. "Militant" is not a word to be used lightly--it is not a synonym for "opinionated" or "passionate." The word should be reserved for people seeking to force their beliefs on others, something Dawkins and most so-called "militant atheists" don't actually do. American theocrats do, though, but we don't give them the same label.

There is a difference between wanting to make sure religion doesn't dictate the government or vice versa and wanting to remove Christianity from the culture. Of them all, Dawkins is by far the worse. He makes an attempt to say that teaching your children any form of religion is wrong.

...And we Christians want to remove atheism from culture. And we Christians would agree that teaching children any form of religion other than Christianity is wrong, that doing so would be leading them away from salvation. But belief alone does not constitute militancy, and if it did, Christians would be as guilty as atheists.

You have Singer teaching it's okay to kill children outside of the womb. Don't fool yourself, these men don't want separation of church and state - they want religion destroyed and they're taking a proactive stance on it. By saying that teaching religion is child abuse, they're introducing the idea that we should ban parents from doing so. By saying a simple Sunday School is the equivalent to a terrorist training camp, they introduce the idea that we should monitor such people. That's oppression, not separation of Church and state.

How is their stance proactive? I don't know about Sagan and Singer, but I've read several of Dawkins' books (including, ugh, the God Delusion) and he presents the issue of "religious child abuse" as an enduring moral problem, not something that could ever be stopped by applying legal pressure. Until Dawkins et al endeavor to translate their agenda into law, they are no more militant than your average churchgoers.

[The Lorax]

Atheists only make up a tiny percentage of the United States population. In terms of demographics, the group that is really growing in the United States is the Agnostics. In fact, some estimates now put Agnostics at almost 20% of the population. Personally, I don't know too many people who are atheists in that they just know (well think actually) that there is no God. I do know a lot of Agnostics. The few pure atheists I have ever personally known generally had some personality disorder type issues, and usually were not well educated. (However, I am sure that demographically this is not the case, just my personal experiences). The Agnostics I have known were all well educated, intelligent, decent and conscionable individuals. However, they just really did not know whether there was a God or not. If you talked to them about it without trying to proselytize at the same time, I found that without exception, it was their experience with fundamentalist Christians that turned them off of religion in general.

This will probably offend people on here, but I really don't know any other way of putting it. If you tell reasonable and intelligent people that the earth is but 6000 years old and that belief in a literal young earth creationism and in a literal worldwide flood where all animals on the earth were placed on a literal ark are absolutely essential beliefs for a Christian. And, when questioned, your proof for this is a couple of tracts and a sloppy homemade looking

[MorningGlory]

Then you haven't dealt with their works.

A militant atheist is someone who takes a pro-active move to remove any religion, specifically Christianity, from the culture.

So you feel that the culture in your area is a Christian one?

In my area about 20% of the population describes themselves as non-religious, 43% Protestant, 25% Catholic and the rest belonging to other religious groups. Religion is generally considered a private matter here.

Your area is totally different from mine but then that's to be expected; I'm not even sure you're in the U.S. That being said, how did you come up with "Grandtheftcow" as a user name? That's priceless!

[The Lorax]

That being said, how did you come up with "Grandtheftcow" as a user name? That's priceless!

I second that.

Btw, my cousin was playing GTA in the background when I first saw your post, grandtheftcow. How's that for eerie?

[apothanein kerdos]

...And we Christians want to remove atheism from culture. And we Christians would agree that teaching children any form of religion other than Christianity is wrong, that doing so would be leading them away from salvation. But belief alone does not constitute militancy, and if it did, Christians would be as guilty as atheists.

You're trying to form an equivalence between truth (Christianity) and non-truth (Atheism). Furthermore, I don't argue that they're insane, have mental problems, delusional, abusive to children (by teaching atheism), or any of the other things. They, on the other hand, argue that about us.

How is their stance proactive? I don't know about Sagan and Singer, but I've read several of Dawkins' books (including, ugh, the God Delusion) and he presents the issue of "religious child abuse" as an enduring moral problem, not something that could ever be stopped by applying legal pressure. Until Dawkins et al endeavor to translate their agenda into law, they are no more militant than your average churchgoers.

Watch "The Faith Virus."

If you get legislators convinced that it's child abuse, then it becomes illegal to teach your child religion. There are already European nations considering this (such as Sweden).

I would expect to have all these debates in the outer court or apologetics section, not in the General Discussion forum.

[The Lorax]

You're trying to form an equivalence between truth (Christianity) and non-truth (Atheism). Furthermore, I don't argue that they're insane, have mental problems, delusional, abusive to children (by teaching atheism), or any of the other things. They, on the other hand, argue that about us.

I'm only saying that it is hypocritical for Christians to call atheists "militant" for their desire to spread atheism, when Christians similarly want to spread Christianity. I'm equating the militancy, not the truth, of the Christian vs. atheist agendas. Big difference.

Watch "The Faith Virus."

If you get legislators convinced that it's child abuse, then it becomes illegal to teach your child religion. There are already European nations considering this (such as Sweden).

I would expect to have all these debates in the outer court or apologetics section, not in the General Discussion forum.

Let's hope legislators listen to their constituents, then. In Sweden, atheists are the majority. In America, they are a tiny minority. I don't think Dawkins' ideas are so compelling they can upset democratic process, do you?

[apothanein kerdos]

I'm only saying that it is hypocritical for Christians to call atheists "militant" for their desire to spread atheism, when Christians similarly want to spread Christianity. I'm equating the militancy, not the truth, of the Christian vs. atheist agendas. Big difference.

Of course, you completely ignored what I was saying.

You're trying to form an equivalence between truth (Christianity) and non-truth (Atheism). Furthermore, I don't argue that they're insane, have mental problems, delusional, abusive to children (by teaching atheism), or any of the other things. They, on the other hand, argue that about us.

It still stands.

You've retrenched from saying that Dawkins et al are forcing their agenda on others to hypothetical "ifs."

Here you go Lorax, you've earned it.

As I stated, if you convince legislators that you're right, then Christianity becomes illegal. As I pointed out, this is already occurring in Sweden. By "if" I meant if the legislators were convinced - it does nothing to the intention of Dawkins and others. Their intention is to completely privatize faith, to the point you can't teach your children Christianity. That is militant.

Let's hope legislators listen to their constituents, then. In Sweden, atheists are the majority. In America, they are a tiny minority. I don't think Dawkins' ideas are so compelling they can upset democratic process, do you?

If something is declared a mental disorder, it doesn't matter what your constituents want. Regardless, minority rights are to be protected, regardless of what the majority wants - unless that minority can be proven to have a mental disorder, or wants something utterly immoral. In Sweden, this is how they're justifying limiting Christian rights. Furthermore, I do believe it could happen in America in the future - when Science is coming out saying that believing in a purposeful universe is a mental disorder, we've already taken our first steps.

[The Lorax]

You're trying to form an equivalence between truth (Christianity) and non-truth (Atheism). Furthermore, I don't argue that they're insane, have mental problems, delusional, abusive to children (by teaching atheism), or any of the other things. They, on the other hand, argue that about us.

You've made a false equivalence between yourself as a person and all atheists on Earth. Sure, you don't argue that atheists are delusional, but many Christians do. There are still clauses in several state constitutions that bar atheists from office. Overall, in America, atheists are more repressed by militant Christian action than vice versa. Go figure, this is a Christian nation.

Here you go Lorax, you've earned.

I know you don't respond well to criticism, which is why I've updated my post. Take a look then get back to me.

As I stated, if you convince legislators that you're right, then Christianity becomes illegal. As I pointed out, this is already occurring in Sweden. By "if" I meant if the legislators were convinced - it does nothing to the intention of Dawkins and others. Their intention is to completely privatize faith, to the point you can't teach your children Christianity. That is militant.

If you are going to use the word so liberally, you might be fair and admit the number of militant Christians far outnumber the militant atheists in this country.

[EricH]

Then you haven't dealt with their works.

...But I have.

A militant atheist is someone who takes a pro-active move to remove any religion, specifically Christianity, from the culture.

Do you consider pressing for church-state separation to be militant? ...I consider it to be patriotic.

The only thing the constitiution forbids is the government establishing any religion. This clause was placed there to protect the church from the government. Not the other way around.