Beware the Militant Atheists

Well whatever is in the glass, I hope it puts a smile on his face! He sure looks depressed.

Ah yes, we are the one perfectly pure and innocent group. No atheist has ever harmed a theist motivated by ideology. Congratulations, us!

Sarah is right on.

The cartoon is about what rates the word “militant”.

The militant atheist should be on the computer debating a Christian in an online forum, in my opinion. You know…”forcing” his non-belief onto others.

Sarah hit the nail on the head. Very well said.

You know…if you think about it, the religious have a totally different word for members of their faith who have the ‘militantism’ of the ‘militant atehist’. They call them devout. A devout christian is roughly the same thing as a militant atheist. Passionate and outspoken about their views and beliefs.

Maybe we should drop the word militant and call them Violent-Christians and Violent-Muslims. It fits, and that way it cannot be turned around on some guy like me giving theists shit in forum. 🙂

Honestly? Looks like Root Beer. I hope it’s A&W…

I wish it were darker so I could claim Guinness. Mmmmm, Guinness…

Yeah, that sums up the militant atheist, alright: Sitting at a bar by themselves, drinking because no one but the bottom of the glass seems to want to listen to reason…

A few thoughts come to mind:

1. Not that I’d agree with doing this, but if we want to play the caricature game like the comic does, we simply need to put a picture of someone like Josef Stalin below the words “Militant Atheist.” Yes, it’d be unfair to do this, but that’s the point.

2. More importantly, the real question is not whether atheists are moral or immoral, but whether they have the grounds or justification to be moral or immoral. Let’s agree, for instance, that many if not most atheists behave more morally than many if not most theists. Fine and good. But given an atheistic worldview such as evolutionary naturalism or scientific pantheism, on what basis does the atheist justify his or her moral behaviour in the first place?

3. Finally, have a look at atheist philosopher Peter Singer’s comments here:

Singer’s beliefs have led him places where few others are willing to go. He has suggested, for example, that parents who give birth to a hemophiliac might be better off killing it, especially if they could replace that dead infant with one who would be “likely to have a better life.” Singer often complains, with justification, that his comments on such issues are exaggerated and taken out of context. So it might be best to let him present the argument himself:

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.

Few people will ever consider infants replaceable in the way that they consider free-range chickens replaceable, and Singer knows that. Yet many of those who would never act on his conclusions still agree that if an infant really had no hope of happiness, death would be more merciful than a life governed by misery.

In this sense, then, aren’t ideas more dangerous than guns, since it’s ideas that often lead to the sorts of tragedies we’ve witnessed in history? And, in my view, certain forms of Islam, Christianity, and atheism all espouse potentially dangerous ideas.

I consider myself a faith healer. I heal people of their faith.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/319047856_dbf1ef3e92.jpg

Bryan, those were not atheists that did that, they were communists, which is a sort of religion when you look at it. A true atheist pretty much doesn’t give a crap what anyone else does. For instance, I am a sacrilegious atheist. In other words, I don’t really care what you do, but I will mock your dumb ass. Can’t fix stupid. Also, think about it. Zombie’s won’t go into churches because there’s no food. BRAAAIIIINSSSSSSS!!!!!!

TDD
well said.

Atheist “humor” is nearly as bad as right wing attempts to be funny, either because only a militant (thereby unfunny) atheist would bother with such a pursuit, or because it’s too boring a topic to begin with–I’m not sure which. I’ve been an atheist for over twenty years and can’t recall ever wanting to talk about it, since there’s nothing to talk about–literally nothing. Cultivate variety in your lives and leave behind this petty intolerance…it’s a waste of time, like religion, and worse, it turns you into zealots and boorish tools no one else can stand. Plus it’s wrecking the Reddit main page, Seacrest out.

I think what a lot of people need to realize is that the more recent surge of “militant” atheism is a natural response to the surge of religion in media and politics.
Frankly, I couldn’t have really cared less about other people’s concept of “God” for most of my teen years and young adulthood. However, the intolerance being preached by many religious people and the rise of fundamentalism scares the piss out of me. It makes me very concerned for the future of my children and our species.

I’ll further Bob’s rebuttal of TDD, we could characterize Adolf Hitler as very favorable if not adopting the Christian faith but that would be unfair. Notice that what’s being identified here are anonymous and wide spread groups of fringe factions within major denominations.
Being an athiest, I’d characterize the militant atheist as someone like richard dawkins who can’t seem to shut up about it. Honestly, to all you other atheists, why can’t we just leave the argument? Taking away the legitimacy of it in the first place would be a vital step in sending these groups the way of the dinosaur.

I can’t believe anybody us still pushing the nonsensical claim that only the bad guys like Stalin are atheists.

Marx and Hitler were both products of a Protestant Lutheran culture.

The Communism of the Soviet Union was a religion that just substituted one mysticism for another – replacing “God” with “historical determinism.” Antagonism towards Christianity was hostility to a rival religion. Like Russian Orthodox Christianity, Soviet Communism’s first requirement was belief in it and its foremost ethical demand was obedience.

As for Hitler, he was a Roman Catholic who never repudiated his faith. The Nazis proudly displayed Martin Luther’s books at their Nuremberg rallies.

The worst Holocaust in history was when Christians massacred Christians, and while the Nazi attempt didn’t even come close to eradicating Judaism, the Albigensian Crusade exterminated forever and totally the Cathar culture.

Christians are the last people in the world qualified to lecture others for murderous social behavior.

@ Francis

Hitler was not a Lutheran, not even by culture. Catholicism was strong in Germany during Hitler’s reign. He was a professed Roman Catholic….till his death.

You would be surprised how easy it is to find that out using some type of search engine.

The militant atheist is obviously planning the drink his coffee and go on a hate filled rant at anybody he sees stepping within 50 feet of a cross.

If a Christian or a Muslim professes their faith out loud, they’re just being proud of their religion and it’s ok; if an atheist states his or her position out loud, even in response to the question “So what’s your religion?”, they’re simply being obnoxious and “anti-religious”.

I’m sick of taking a passive position. I’m sick of limp-wristed atheists who regurgitate tiresome maxims like “you can’t prove a negative, nor disprove a non-falsifiable claim”. Some of us live in hyper-religious Muslim societies where atheism is automatically seen as an active denial of god’s existence instead of simply being a LACK OF BELIEF in the existence of any gods.

Even “moderate” Muslims who don’t actively call for the death sentence for apostates at the very least support it tacitly on grounds that it counts as treason against the supra-state that is Islam.

It’s easier for atheists living in more liberal and secular countries, but for atheists like me, militancy is more a matter of reactive self-defence rather than aggression.