How can you be a militant atheist? It's like sleeping furiously.

[cleanhippie]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy

AC Grayling: 'How can you be a militant atheist? It's like sleeping furiously'

In his new book, The Good Book: A Secular Bible, the philosopher sets out his manifesto for rational thought. He talks about why religion angers him, the power of philosophy – and his mane of hair


In the unholy trinity of professional atheists, AC Grayling has always tended to be regarded as the good cop. Less coldly clinical in tone than Richard Dawkins, less aggressively combative than Christopher Hitchens, Grayling approaches the God debate with a gently teasing charm that could almost – but should never – be mistaken for conciliation. "Yes, I'm the velvet version," he chuckles.

--snip--

He is very cross, for example, with the question in the current census that asks: "What is your religion?" The British Humanist Society has just conducted a poll that asked those surveyed if they were religious – to which 65% said no. But when asked, "What is your religion?" 61% of the very same people answered Christian. "You see, they say, 'Oh well, nominally I suppose I'm Christian.' But two-thirds of the population don't regard themselves as religious! So we have to try to persuade society as a whole to recognise that religious groups are self-constituted interest groups; they exist to promote their point of view. Now, in a liberal democracy they have every right to do so. But they have no greater right than anybody else, any political party or Women's Institute or trade union. But for historical reasons they have massively overinflated influence – faith-based schools, religious broadcasting, bishops in the House of Lords, the presence of religion at every public event. We've got to push it back to its right size."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy

[geckosfeet]

1. I'm militant. And I am atheist. I am not militant about atheism though.

[Liberal Veteran]

2. I suppose you could show up at a church baptism with a blow dryer to debaptize people.

[Lost-in-FL]

3. Just don't burn my copy of The God Delusion!!!

I'm series!!!1111!!! :argh:

[Ninjaneer]

42. LOL nt

[Warpy]

4. I'm not terribly polite when some believer wants to define me

as any sort of pejorative. I suppose that's what makes the poor dears think I'm a militant atheist.

I have absolutely no desire to convert them away from whatever gets them through a long and lonely night. I just don't like being insulted, thanks.

[Festivito]

5. A dumb title, unless you're meaning for it to appear dumb.

People with night terrors sleep furiously.

Which means your metaphor or analogy is, well, dumb.

ACG is right about people mindlessly identifying themselves as Christians. Who trusts statistics.

[cleanhippie]

6. Not my title, take it up with the author.

Forget bothering to discuss the topic and instead try to discredit the poster.

But that would be, well, dumb, huh?

[Festivito]

7. You posted an article with a dumb title. That, I take up with you.

I did discuss it as far as I needed. I can understand your recalcitrance to follow suit.

[cleanhippie]

8. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Applying the same logic, one could come to the same conclusion about your screen name, and decide it has been discussed as far as needed.

See how that works? Nifty, huh?


When you are ready to discuss something of more substantial intellectual value that the "dumbness" of a the title of an article, I will be here, ready to engage.

[Festivito]

10. You seem to be a piece of work in progress. Good luck with that.

I discussed two things about the article. Its title, and people mindlessly identifying themselves as Christians. You, did not discuss what was said, only that you do not like discussing a title.

And that is your idea of being ready to discuss. Hmm.

Good luck. Maybe someday you'll progress from the form to the substance.

[cleanhippie]

11. As I stated, when you are ready to join the adults, we are saving a seat for you.

[Festivito]

12. I guess that is where you think you are sitting. I guess we differ, again. /nt

[cleanhippie]

13. I guess so.

[struggle4progress]

38. It seems to be from Chomsky's famous linguistic example:

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" -- correct in syntax, but with each consecutive word-pair nonsensical by semantics

[ChadwickHenryWard]

47. Actually, that's Grayling's academic background coming out.

The title is a reference to this sentence by MIT linguist Noam Chomsky. It's an example of a sentence that is grammatically correct but lacks any semantic content. Grayling is assuming that you are familiar with the idea and playing off it.

[AlecBGreen]

9. 2 definitions of atheist

depending on who you ask:

1) lack belief in God
2) believe there is no God

There are some in the second category who try to convince others of their belief that there is no God. They are wholly convinced there is no God and try to persuade others of such. They refuse to consider the possibility of an alternative. They would meet the definition of a militant atheist.

According to atheists Ive met here in the R/T, I think all have described themselves as #1 atheists.

[cleanhippie]

14. SO, by your use of the second definiton...

all believers who "are wholly convinced there is a God and try to persuade others of such, They refuse to consider the possibility of an alternative," meet the definition of militant believer? That would mean just about ALL believers fit that category, huh?

[AlecBGreen]

15. yeah, though I dont think I would say 'just about all'

I think there are many (including myself) who have occasional doubt or consider that we might be wrong. Many of us are also hesitant about proseletyzing, despite the exhortation to do so. It goes against what our culture has taught us, namely, we dont discuss sex, religion, or politics in polite company :) Considering we talk about all three all the time here on DU, I dont know what that says about us!

edit spelling

[Dorian Gray]

40. DU has been accused of many things

but of being polite? Never.

[humblebum]

16. Simple. If you are an atheist and you are a militant THEN

you are a militant atheist.

[cleanhippie]

17. Ahh, ok, well that does not describe any atheists alive right now, so there are no militant atheists

Glad we got that cleared up.


OTOH, militant is a word that properly describes MANY believers, of all faiths including christianity, alive today, so there ARE militant believers.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant

[humblebum]

18. Actually it probably describes yourself or certainly someone like Hitchens, etc.

who writes books and gives speeches denouncing religion, etc. You failed to read far enough along in your wiki dictionary.

"The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines militant as "aggressively active (as in a cause)".<3> It says that the word militant might typically be used in phrases such as 'militant conservationists' or 'a militant attitude'.

The free dictionary says: adj. 2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.

Thesaurus.com Militant Synonyms:
adjective: aggressive, combative. Synonyms: active , assertive , assertory, bellicose

Yep. There are a few of those around here and elsewhere.

[darkstar3]

19. Writing a book and giving speeches makes one militant?

Sure...

[humblebum]

20. so you see no difference between Little Women and Mein Kampf ?

You know that is not what I said.

[darkstar3]

21. It IS what you said.

#18 says that you think that "militant atheist" describes someone who writes books and gives speeches denouncing religion. So writing books and giving speeches makes one militant? Do you get the absurdity of that idea?

[humblebum]

22. I believe you intentionally ignored the "denouncing religion" part,

which quite obviously modifies and clarifies the meaning. Either you are purposely deceiving or your vocabulary is very limited. Get real if you expect to be taken seriously. And I also never said that writing books and giving speeches "makes" someone militant. You screwed up there too.

[darkstar3]

23. I didn't ignore it. It's too vague a term.

To denounce a religion could be as simple as stating that you don't believe in that religion. Not only do atheists do this simply by self-identifying, non-members of one stated religion could be seen as denouncing it by adhering to the rules of some other god.

If you think "denouncing religion" is enough to make one a militant, then you believe that EVERY atheist is a militant. Which is, I guess, in keeping with your posting history...

[humblebum]

24. I also qualified the statement by tying it to "someone like Hitchens..."

whose anti-religious rhetoric is well known. Very little room for misinterpretation.

[darkstar3]

25. You're flatly stating that people who speak against religion in text and public arenas are militant.

There IS very little room for misinterpretation. You have nowhere left to spin.

[humblebum]

26. Then you are also saying that ALL atheists are like Hitchens, because

that is the obvious qualification that I stated. You are being intentionally dishonest. You claim that I said writing and making speeches "makes" someone militant. In that case what were they before they wrote and spoke? And now you are implying that all atheists are like Hitchens when clearly they are not. Very pathetic. And nowhere did I flatly state "that people who speak against religion in text and public arenas are militant." I suppose if you remove the words "Hitchens, etc., then you might have a case. Very dishonest.

Definitely spinning your little heart out here. I think another one of your stars just went dark.

[darkstar3]

27. So what makes Hitchens militant?

You see, I can actually read, and in #18, you threw Hitchens out there as a militant and then you offered what you thought was an explanation as to why you believed he was a militant. That explanation was that he wrote books and gave public speeches denouncing religion. Now, when you realize that such a definition of a militant is fucking ridiculous, you're trying to retreat and say that people "like Hitchens" are militants.

So what makes Hitchens a militant, bum? If it isn't the speeches, and it isn't the writing, and it isn't the denouncing, then you shouldn't have brought it up.

[humblebum]

28. Well, It just might be that he fits some of the definitions listed? Just a hunch.

"Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.

Militant Synonyms:
adjective: aggressive, combative. Synonyms: active , assertive , assertory, bellicose

But, then again I may have misiunderstood his words - "ridicule, hatred, and contempt for religion." It might be that he was just talking about indigestion or pickles or something else that he had ridicule, hatred, and contempt for.

[darkstar3]

29. And what makes Hitchens combative and aggressive?

Is he screaming from a lectern? Is he advocating for violence? Is he attempting to engage you in combat? No.

Have you ever actually watched Hitchens speak? He is calm, composed, humorous, and even takes a congenial vocal tone with people from the audience who disagree with him. Hardly the attributes of an aggressive and combative personality. That he refuses to accord the respect you demand through special pleading for your religion does nothing to make him combative.

Try again. Since Hitchens is neither aggressive nor combative, he doesn't fit THIS definition of militant that you have provided either. Do you have another? Do you even realize that people who disagree with you, even vehemently, are not automatically militant? Do you feel that, in light of your constant fight-picking on this board and your rabid attacks against atheists and atheism, it would be fair for us to call you militant?

[humblebum]

30. Yes, when he was using the words "ridicule, hatred, and contempt,

he was being "calm, composed, humorous." And of course he has never been aggressive against anyone, nor combative. What was I thinking?! I did not say that he had no good qualities. He is intelligent. He can be quite humorous, and I am sure he can be an all around great guy.

You are just going in circles here.

[darkstar3]

32. And those things constitute aggression against you or other believers?

They constitute a desire for Hitchens to do combat with you or other believers?

Of course not.

I'm not going in circles at all. You're playing it fast and loose with words in order to defend the rhetoric you've puked onto this board so often before. You know that Hitchens is neither aggressive nor combative, but you are desperate to paint him so as it is now, in this argument, the only way for you to continue referring to him as "militant."

You seem not to realize that you're painted into a corner. If we broaden the definition of militant to include Hitchens, it must also include you. Otherwise, you're simply the lowest form of hypocrite.

[humblebum]

33. You seem intent on giving the term militant a strictly physical attribution.

And that simply is not the case. It is very common in a debate for speech to be combative and agressive. To say that Hitchens does not engage in verbal aggression and combat is ridiculous. And to engage in those things is not necessarily a bad quality. Nor is militancy. Yes he is militant. I am militant. You are militant. And of course WE ALL know that Hitchens has never engaged in any combative debates with a believer. SARCASM I think you need your sleep. Good Night.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humblebum]

31. deleted

[Dorian Gray]

41. If, as stated above,

most Christians are militant by definition (which I disagree with, as most of the Christians I know keep to themselves and have doubts and don't spout off about religion on a regular basis. but my sampling is mostly Catholic in NYC, so it skews liberal and is far from scientific), then using that same definition, any atheist who insists just as strongly that believing in God is stupid but meet the parameters that the person above set up.

Personally, I think a militant religious person is someone willing to kill for their beliefs. Abortion doctor bombers, Medieval crusading Christians, the Taliban (in general), etc. They are by no means the majority of any believers. Are there atheists in their midst? Perhaps. I wouldn't classify Hitchens as anything other than a pesky blowhard, though. (Note: perhaps it is his drinking and bright red face. I wouldn't classify Dawkins in the same way.)

[cleanhippie]

35. Actually, its describes YOU!

To the letter.

[humblebum]

36. I've been called a few things in my life but never a militant atheist.

So this what it feels like.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skepticscott]

39. Looks like you are still

totally incapable of comprehending the difference between atheism and anti-theism. Come back when you have a clue.

[humblebum]

43. Hardly. There are anti-theistic atheists as well as non-atheistic anti-theists

Never have I said that all atheists are anti-theistic. If you are going to make such a statement, back it up with evidence.

[skepticscott]

46. Too funny

since the evidence is in your own post #18 and you don't even understand it. You claimed that the term militant atheist "certainly" describes someone like Hitchens, "who writes books and gives speeches denouncing religion." Except that the behavior you're describing is anti-theism, not atheism. If you wanted to label Hitchens as a militant anti-theist instead, then (for once) you'd be correct. But that seems to be beyond you.

[humblebum]

48. So what your telling me is that Hitchens is not an atheist but an anti -theist?

We both know that Hitchens is both atheistsic and anti-theistic, therefore, either characterization of his expressions is valid.

[Amaya]

49. you're disingenuous

:puke:

[cleanhippie]

50. Yeah, its really something to behold, huh?

:puke:

I couldn't agree more.

[onager]

44. And what about the League of Militant Xians?

[laconicsax]

45. I hear they put sugar on their porridge. n/t