|
|
Hi,
Lately I've been thinking about militant atheism and some of the few people who support it like Dawkins or Hitchens.
Basically I understand this movement to say "We've had enough of this mess, bullshit doesn't deserve respect, there's no reason for religion to be the holy cow of today's society" (right?). A few years back I was mostly centered on myself and thought "Hey, it's everyone's private business", but my views changed that no, we've been way to soft on religions, parascience and other bullshit.
If we called out all the lies present in faith-filled communities, if we even could without getting charged for "hurting religious feeling of others", could we actually help people?
I'm talking about all the examples of people dieing from faith - refusing blood transfusions, throwing acid at young girls, ripping their faces open, sending death threats to Westergaard because of a caricature he drew five years ago...
I'm thinking this over and over, because faith is dangerous. However, people should have respect for others. How can we have respect for close-minded people? Can we even afford this respect towards religion in modern times?
| Quote: | | On January 1, 2010, a 28-year-old Somali Muslim intruder armed with an axe and knife entered Westergaard's house and was subsequently shot and wounded by police. Westergaard who was unharmed, because of the security precautions in his house fled to the panic room leaving his five-year-old granddaughter, Stephanie alone in the house with the intruder |
^ Wikipedia
| Quote: | He was confronted with a terrible choice: risk being killed in front of his granddaughter, or trust that the PET, Denmark's security and intelligence service, knew what they were talking about when they had told him terrorists usually don't harm family members but stick to their target.
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/04/danish-cartoonist-axe-attack
When reading, sounds a little biased, don't you think?
But about what your're saying:
I don't think hostility towards religion is necessary. Religion should eventually die out on its own.
| Arty wrote: |
But about what your're saying:
I don't think hostility towards religion is necessary. Religion should eventually die out on its own. |
In fact, hostility may be quite counterproductive. Many religions flourish all the better when persecuted.
But there was no hostility to religion, not on this scale in the previous years? Through medieval times there was basically no hostility, while the little hostility during the age of enlightenment did wonders.
I'm not shouting for blood shed and killing, I'm advocating legislative regulations. No more religion-friendly tax laws, no more blasphemy laws. How is it that science and humanism may be freely critique but religion is "holy"?
Yes, I know, science and humanism thrive on critique, it helps them, but it is terrible to religion, especially organized religion to the point of pressuring laws to keep that what is holy, holy. Untouchable. Well, in my opinion, this is extremely wrong, because this indicates that something is outside our reach, something is infallible. In this way, even non-believers are forced to deify religion, because they cannot critique it.
Also, isn't it wrong place religion under protection, but basically all but ban fascist, communist or nazi views? I see that as hypcritical, because some (stupid) views are protected whilst other (stupid) views are banned.
| c'tair wrote: |
I'm not shouting for blood shed and killing, I'm advocating legislative regulations. No more religion-friendly tax laws, no more blasphemy laws. How is it that science and humanism may be freely critique but religion is "holy"?
|
Just start critiquing humanists and scientists... Some of them will have just as much 'righteous indignation' as the religious people.
| Quote: |
Also, isn't it wrong place religion under protection, but basically all but ban fascist, communist or nazi views? I see that as hypcritical, because some (stupid) views are protected whilst other (stupid) views are banned. |
Where are communist, fascist, or Nazi views banned?
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Arty wrote: |
But about what your're saying:
I don't think hostility towards religion is necessary. Religion should eventually die out on its own. |
In fact, hostility may be quite counterproductive. Many religions flourish all the better when persecuted. |
Completely agreed. The crusades are a very good example of exactly that. The more persecuted people are, the harder they will fight for that which they are being persecuted for.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
In fact, hostility may be quite counterproductive. Many religions flourish all the better when persecuted. |
That's a good point!
| ocalhoun wrote: | | c'tair wrote: |
I'm not shouting for blood shed and killing, I'm advocating legislative regulations. No more religion-friendly tax laws, no more blasphemy laws. How is it that science and humanism may be freely critique but religion is "holy"?
|
Just start critiquing humanists and scientists... Some of them will have just as much 'righteous indignation' as the religious people.
| Quote: |
Also, isn't it wrong place religion under protection, but basically all but ban fascist, communist or nazi views? I see that as hypcritical, because some (stupid) views are protected whilst other (stupid) views are banned. |
Where are communist, fascist, or Nazi views banned? |
Oh yes, many will, of course, but I reckon that they might be more open to change because they are dabbling in essentially provable subjects. If God almighty came down and showed himself to me, I would believe, if trials were said to confirm precognitive ability in humans or other esoteric phenomena, I'd agree, but they do not, so I do not agree.
ALso, Nazi views are banned in germany It think. And usually when you start voicing these views you will get called names  . I usually played the Devil's advocate for both fascism and communism when the topics came up, I show showed them that both systems have certain merits and cannot be called as objectively evil or bad.
Also, take into account that both Christianity and Islam (two biggest religions), both boast of being persecuted  . I remember that even in my motherland, Poland, there are voices that Catholics are persecuted... Where catholics make up 90% of the country . Persecution or no persecution, they still fight back.
I don't wanna sound like a kinder-atheist, but it just got to me that there's a certain fine line where accepting lies perpetuated by clergy or the 'holy' status of religion in a nation is just too much. Maybe it's not as bad in many western-european countries, but it is a bit of a problem in Poland actually.
No persecution would be needed. Just quietly insert and emphasize logical reasoning and "bullshit detection" into school curriculums and let students come to their own conclusions. Within two or three generations religion will be slowly, quietly abandoned. There may be a few hold outs, pockets of home schooled fanatics, but as long as they aren't militant then we could safely ignore them as an odd minority entitled to their beliefs.
Personally I think there are many other reasons why "bullshit detection" should be taught in schools - our children need to know how to differentiate between fact and fiction not only to avoid the pitfalls of religious fanaticism, but to avoid falling for high pressure sales tactics, scams, and the lies of politicians.
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit
I totally endorse that last posting. It has long been an ambition of mine to get a national curriculum module on this - I thought about 'defensive thinking' or 'critical thinking' or similar, and it would certainly include much of the late Carl Sagan's recommendations, which form a coherent basis for a module.
| Jinx wrote: | | Personally I think there are many other reasons why "bullshit detection" should be taught in schools - our children need to know how to differentiate between fact and fiction not only to avoid the pitfalls of religious fanaticism, but to avoid falling for high pressure sales tactics, scams, and the lies of politicians. |
Completely agreed and really well said, however, I would imagine that the logical end-product of "bullshit detection" teaching at schools would completely nix all of the courses and training materials that are available in sales literature, public relations campaigns, the media, and politicians trying to manipulate and control people. As everyone is being taught indirectly how to get people to like them so that they can get them to do what they want them to do for a specific end result. In other words manipulate people along Dale Carnegie's lines of "How to win friends and influence people?" You agree with as many as you can, you compromise with those that you differ with in a quid per pro arrangement, and you nix those who are popularly nixed by everyone else, even when you know they have a good point.
Tough task!
No. Teaching someone proper critical thinking doesn't mean they will always behave rationally. Even the most rational of us occasionally throw the filters out - sometimes by choice - occasionally.
It is, however, your only chance of escaping an exploited and confusing life of consumerism.
| Bikerman wrote: | No. Teaching someone proper critical thinking doesn't mean they will always behave rationally. Even the most rational of us occasionally throw the filters out - sometimes by choice - occasionally.
It is, however, your only chance of escaping an exploited and confusing life of consumerism. |
Do you think that escape is possible though? You may be able to minimize the confusion out there a little, but there is just too much of dishonesty around, and purposeful and calculated manipulation through dishonesty, for us to have an absolute clear picture of what is going on. I'm perpetually confused by the information we are getting from our politicians and economists for example, and I cannot see how any filters could be developed for escaping this confusion, minimize perhaps, but never complete escape. For me the only answer is to move back to teaching basics of honesty, sincerity, self-discipline, self-knowledge, responsibility for self, trust and compassion. And to simplify our lives.
i don't really understand the question. Escape from what? Life has always been full of chiselers and cheats. if anything I think current society is way more honest than anything gone-past. There are few sacred cows not open to honest question (there are still some though) and we don't automatically believe something because our betters tell us it is so (however you define 'better' but in the west it would be defined overwhelmingly by social class).
The downsides are only downsides compared to something else and I see no period in history which I think was 'better'.
Better critical thinking is the next step. We have democratised society to a large extent (though I think there is much yet to do), and we have rid society of some of the structures (particularly the Church and class-based legislation/jurisprudence) which, to those used to those structures, leave an apparent authority gap.
Young people don't see it that way at all, in my experience. This society is both normal and completely natural for most of them. It is true that the sheer pace of change is worrying, even debilitating, for those of my generation and older (and many younger), but that is our problem.
The problems that will need addressing will not be framed by me, but by a very different generation of people with a different view of what is desirable or 'normal'.
I would suggest that a candidate would be political reform - the representative democracies seem to me to be showing their age rather badly and we cannot continue to have government decided by a small minority of the population who bother to vote.
Another candidate would be 'happiness' - something which very little serious thought has been given over to in political, business and social life to date.
| Jinx wrote: | | No persecution would be needed. Just quietly insert and emphasize logical reasoning and "bullshit detection" into school curriculums and let students come to their own conclusions. |
Can't do that!
Then they might use it on what politicians and product advertisers tell them. Society as we know it would collapse! 
| Bikerman wrote: | | i don't really understand the question. Escape from what? |
This was a response to your reference to escape in your previous posting: | Bikerman wrote: | No. Teaching someone proper critical thinking doesn't mean they will always behave rationally. Even the most rational of us occasionally throw the filters out - sometimes by choice - occasionally.
It is, however, your only chance of escaping an exploited and confusing life of consumerism. |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Life has always been full of chiselers and cheats. if anything I think current society is way more honest than anything gone-past. There are few sacred cows not open to honest question (there are still some though) and we don't automatically believe something because our betters tell us it is so (however you define 'better' but in the west it would be defined overwhelmingly by social class). |
Life to me has become much more complicated than before. It has become much tougher for young children to survive in society and they are forced to fend for themselves and grow up much more quickly. Some of the tools they are taught in order to survive are the very ones that eventually become responsible for all the BS out in the media and elsewhere. I.e. how to get people to like you and how to get them to do what you want them to do so that you can get your objectives met. Along the lines of Dale Carnegie's: "How to win friends and influence people". All one has to do is spend a day in one of these large popular bookshops and browse through books on techniques like NLP and "how to" do this that and the other.
I agree with you that nothing is as sacred as it used to be, but an overload through the information age has not really made us any wiser or less selfish and greedy. Perhaps just more confused.
Ahh, I see what you mean. No, that reference to escape from confusion and exploitation which is quite delberate and comes from all around. Critical Thinking (CT) is the only way I know out of that. Adults tend to have it to some degree, more than most teens, but it is a skill that needs practicing occasionally and the average level is WAY too low for comfort.
Basically whatever you expect the world to be like, if you can't think critically, you will be confused and exploited. Young or old. Of course, the mystics could be right and this could be your first step to enlightenment, but on the whole I think I'll stick with the CT.
| Jinx wrote: | No persecution would be needed. Just quietly insert and emphasize logical reasoning and "bullshit detection" into school curriculums and let students come to their own conclusions. Within two or three generations religion will be slowly, quietly abandoned. There may be a few hold outs, pockets of home schooled fanatics, but as long as they aren't militant then we could safely ignore them as an odd minority entitled to their beliefs.
Personally I think there are many other reasons why "bullshit detection" should be taught in schools - our children need to know how to differentiate between fact and fiction not only to avoid the pitfalls of religious fanaticism, but to avoid falling for high pressure sales tactics, scams, and the lies of politicians.
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit |
Oh, I've read Dragons of Eden, very good book. However, as I've already mentioned, religion is tolerated in many places, there IS no persecution, but they're making it up and selling it to the followers. It's the only way I can describe it. It reminds me about that funny North Carolina law that only believers can be in a public position from not so long ago.
I also agree that this would be awesome, but this is essentially the basis of modern science. Science is taught in first world countries and... what happens? We have a huge war on the theory of evolution going on in the US, we have very unskilled science teachers... Basically, I really would want this "make the world straight" sort of strategy, because in reality that would be it, but there will be people against it, the same sort of people against science, theory of evolution in schools and people who claim to hear voices of non-existent entities.
I'd only propose a more strict legislative solution, because I find it absurd the pressure of religion on the state, which ideally should be completely separate from ANY religion. Same goes for religion in schools - state schools should be devoid of religion except for religious studies. How can we trust politicians who believe in an invisible guy in the sky? Can they assure me that their belief will not interfere with their decisions and they will only base their choices, having impact on millions of people, on facts, truth and hard work?
| c'tair wrote: | | How can we trust politicians who believe in an invisible guy in the sky? Can they assure me that their belief will not interfere with their decisions and they will only base their choices, having impact on millions of people, on facts, truth and hard work? |
Well, if people have faith, even if it is in something invisible, I would be more motivated by that person than someone who has no faith at all and perhaps a very cynical person as a consquence. For me there is a very thin line that separates belief in science and faith in an invisible guy, maybe they are just on different sides of the same coin. What matters to me however is that they do believe in something. Perhaps the reference to someone who believes in an invisible guy, as something that would be a flaw, is as misleading about the "failings" of that person as someone who only believes in science, or does not believe in anything at all. What matters is if this guy is competent and good at his job.
I think the main concern here is when politicians start to bring up "God" to soften up the religious folk to political agendas. An example would be Bush's invasion of Iraq (I believe at one point he believed that God supported his war).
| Bikerman wrote: | | Critical Thinking (CT) is the only way I know out of that. Adults tend to have it to some degree, more than most teens, but it is a skill that needs practicing occasionally and the average level is WAY too low for comfort. |
This caught my attention since I believe my CT needs a bit of work. I was wondering if there are more specific "advanced" tips in addition to the basics (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html). There's just a very thin line between cynicism and critical thinking in my opinion, and oftentimes I find myself wandering the world of cynicism thinking I'm still within the bounds of critical thinking. It's not a very good feeling when you realize it.
| deanhills wrote: | | c'tair wrote: | | How can we trust politicians who believe in an invisible guy in the sky? Can they assure me that their belief will not interfere with their decisions and they will only base their choices, having impact on millions of people, on facts, truth and hard work? |
Well, if people have faith, even if it is in something invisible, I would be more motivated by that person than someone who has no faith at all and perhaps a very cynical person as a consquence. For me there is a very thin line that separates belief in science and faith in an invisible guy, maybe they are just on different sides of the same coin. What matters to me however is that they do believe in something. Perhaps the reference to someone who believes in an invisible guy, as something that would be a flaw, is as misleading about the "failings" of that person as someone who only believes in science, or does not believe in anything at all. What matters is if this guy is competent and good at his job. |
Everything is a belief. As has been discussed many times here, there is a significant difference between a belief and faith.
| liljp617 wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | c'tair wrote: | | How can we trust politicians who believe in an invisible guy in the sky? Can they assure me that their belief will not interfere with their decisions and they will only base their choices, having impact on millions of people, on facts, truth and hard work? |
Well, if people have faith, even if it is in something invisible, I would be more motivated by that person than someone who has no faith at all and perhaps a very cynical person as a consquence. For me there is a very thin line that separates belief in science and faith in an invisible guy, maybe they are just on different sides of the same coin. What matters to me however is that they do believe in something. Perhaps the reference to someone who believes in an invisible guy, as something that would be a flaw, is as misleading about the "failings" of that person as someone who only believes in science, or does not believe in anything at all. What matters is if this guy is competent and good at his job. |
Everything is a belief. As has been discussed many times here, there is a significant difference between a belief and faith. |
Agreed. If you came to the conclusion that I did not know the difference, my apologies. I thought I had the differences sorted out by saying belief in science and not faith in science. The focus and energy on belief in science to me is however equal to the focus and energy of faith in something. If someone has a strong belief in science, then that person for me has a lot of substance, equal to the substance of someone who has a lot of faith. Someone who has no belief in anything would have me worried. They probably should not be dealing with the public anyway.
I'm not anti-religion. I'm pro-freedom.
How is it fair when people like me (who view things as subjective) are constantly pressured by objective-minded people who try to force their own realities on us?
I think that everyone creates their own realities, and everyone should just accept that reality in an objective sense does not exist.
| Arty wrote: | I'm not anti-religion. I'm pro-freedom.
How is it fair when people like me (who view things as subjective) are constantly pressured by objective-minded people who try to force their own realities on us?
I think that everyone creates their own realities, and everyone should just accept that reality in an objective sense does not exist. |
Isn't it always someone trying to force "their reality" on others? I think the question has always been the same, with a few minor details changed here and there: Which "realities" are rightfully imposed or pressed upon others in a society? Unfortunately, most people believe their views are correct...no questions asked, no argument necessary. Of course, that is a pretty difficult mentality to overcome.
The view that people create their own realities is suspect on several levels.
Introspection tells me that I don't believe that I create my reality. That means that I am either unaware of it or I am controlled by someone/thing else. My reality frequently imposes on me in painful and dangerous ways which I certainly wouldn't choose. I don't accept that. I think there is an objective reality outside us. Our senses give us a tiny part of a tiny part of it and this differs from person to person. Our machines give us much more.
If you create your own reality then don't create me or others of an objective mentality - simple. If you create reality and you don't like what you create then that is saying something deep....
Try creating a reality in which you are 10 feet tall.
Unless you are an extreme solipsist then your personal reality interfaces with lots of other personal realities constantly and lots of independent realities - if the tree falls then yes it bleedin does make a sound, even if you are not around.
| Arty wrote: | I'm not anti-religion. I'm pro-freedom.
How is it fair when people like me (who view things as subjective) are constantly pressured by objective-minded people who try to force their own realities on us?
I think that everyone creates their own realities, and everyone should just accept that reality in an objective sense does not exist. |
The problem is that this is a fanciful wish that just can't work in the real world.
Let's be clear about this: i vehemently oppose anyone forcing their beliefs on others. That's simply unacceptable, always. Doesn't matter whether they're atheist (militant or otherwise) or religious, doesn't matter what the belief is. If i believe the world is round and you believe it is flat, nothing about me or my belief (intrinsically) gives me the right to force you to conform to my belief.
The fact of my belief is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that i believe the Earth is round. It doesn't matter who i am.
But here's the thing, and it is rather complicated to grasp.
The fact that the Earth is round is something that should be believed... not because i believe it... but because of the evidence for that fact. It should be believed because, according to all of the best evidence humanity has amassed up to this point, it is the most likely true answer.
Now, you're free to ignore all of this and believe it's flat, and i have no right to stop you. i can tell you you're wrong - just as you can tell me i'm wrong - and i can tell you why i think you're wrong - just as you can tell me why you think i'm wrong... but i can't make you believe anything, even if it is something that, by all rights, you should believe.
Now, with all that in mind, to answer your question directly: | Arty wrote: | | How is it fair when people like me (who view things as subjective) are constantly pressured by objective-minded people who try to force their own realities on us? |
What if you were a pilot plotting a navigation course for a flight i will be taking. Don't you think that i have the right to demand - with my own life and the lives of the other passengers on the line - that you use the best information available when doing that task? Don't you think it's fair that you be held responsible for the lives riding on your navigation? Don't you think it's fair to expect that when you do this job, you will do it as best as possible with the knowledge and technology available?
It seems to me that you would expect nothing less of me, were i the navigator instead of you.
It doesn't matter that i believe the Earth is round... you should conform to the "reality" that it is round even if you believe otherwise because that is the best knowledge we (humanity) has on the subject.
And THAT is what "militant atheism" is all about. It is not about forcing people to accept the "reality" that there are no gods, it is about forcing everyone to use the best knowledge available when making decisions that will affect others.
You see, you have the freedom to believe whatever the hell you want to believe... and to do whatever the hell you want to do in accordance with those beliefs... PROVIDED YOU DON'T RISK HARMING OTHERS UNNECESSARILY IN DOING SO.
If you want to believe that disease is caused by poor diet, go nuts. But the moment you try to influence the way disease is treated to conform to your beliefs, in opposition to the best knowledge available (which says that disease is caused by viruses, among other things), you risk harming others. That is unacceptable.
[quote="Indi"] | Arty wrote: |
Now, with all that in mind, to answer your question directly: | Arty wrote: | | How is it fair when people like me (who view things as subjective) are constantly pressured by objective-minded people who try to force their own realities on us? |
What if you were a pilot plotting a navigation course for a flight i will be taking. Don't you think that i have the right to demand - with my own life and the lives of the other passengers on the line - that you use the best information available when doing that task? Don't you think it's fair that you be held responsible for the lives riding on your navigation? Don't you think it's fair to expect that when you do this job, you will do it as best as possible with the knowledge and technology available?
It seems to me that you would expect nothing less of me, were i the navigator instead of you.
It doesn't matter that i believe the Earth is round... you should conform to the "reality" that it is round even if you believe otherwise because that is the best knowledge we (humanity) has on the subject.
And THAT is what "militant atheism" is all about. It is not about forcing people to accept the "reality" that there are no gods, it is about forcing everyone to use the best knowledge available when making decisions that will affect others.
You see, you have the freedom to believe whatever the hell you want to believe... and to do whatever the hell you want to do in accordance with those beliefs... PROVIDED YOU DON'T RISK HARMING OTHERS UNNECESSARILY IN DOING SO.
If you want to believe that disease is caused by poor diet, go nuts. But the moment you try to influence the way disease is treated to conform to your beliefs, in opposition to the best knowledge available (which says that disease is caused by viruses, among other things), you risk harming others. That is unacceptable. |
Dude. This is what I was aiming at, but I couldn't phrase it this well. May I use this example of navigation when I'll be taking up this topic with other people?
Maybe if more people read/heard this, they'd stop thinking that militant atheists are the same as evenagelical christians, that they're the same "strain" of belief-filled people, which completely misses the point. The point is exactly what you said.
| c'tair wrote: | | May I use this example of navigation when I'll be taking up this topic with other people? |
Oh, but of course!
| c'tair wrote: | | Maybe if more people read/heard this, they'd stop thinking that militant atheists are the same as evenagelical christians, that they're the same "strain" of belief-filled people, which completely misses the point. The point is exactly what you said. |
It's an uphill battle, and unfortuately the other side has figured out that it's an effective way to fight against reason. Just read any forum where religion and atheism are discussed, including this one, and inevitably you will find people trying to claim that atheism is just another religion and/or militant atheists are no different from militant religious fundamentalists. Both claims are quite obviously nonsense. In the first case you can either try to explain that atheism cannot be a religion because atheism is not a belief... or you can just drop lines like "if atheism is a religion then bald is a hair colour" or "if atheism is a religion then health is a disease". But the latter case is more difficult.
And if it strikes you as a little idiotic that religious people try to make atheism look bad by calling it a religion... it strikes me so, too. But, there it is. You'll see it quite often.
But it really is an effective tactic - so prominent that it has a name: tu quoque.
Luckily, though, we live in an age where it is obvious enough that not all beliefs are created equal. Religious people can wax rhetorical all day about how much faith they have in their gods... but at the end of the day they go to hospitals when they get sick, not priests (at least, most of them do). And when people do shirk modern scientific medicine for religious stuff - for example, when parents refuse to give their children medical treatment and take them to a faith healer instead, any honest religious person (who is not a complete fool) will call those parents morally reprehensible. They know, no matter how much they want to try to deny it, that there is a big difference between between believing that viruses cause diseases, and believing that demons cause diseases.
But what they try to do is distract people by simply saying one belief is right and one is wrong, and that only fools believe in the wrong one, but that not all questions are simply right or wrong. All of which is true, but completely beside the point. Because the real issue - the one they don't like to face up to - is WHY one is "obviously right" while the other is "obviously wrong": one is "obviously right" because it conforms to all of our observations and reasoning about the real world; the other does not.
Same is true in the navigator case. All beliefs are not created equal, and what matters is not who believes something or what they believe but WHY they believe it. The belief that the Earth is round is "better" in this context because it conforms to all of our observations and reasoning about the real world; the other does not.
But now take a belief about where your soul is going in the afterlife. Let's say you believe it's going to a happy, cloudly place where you will play harps and such for eternity, while i believe it simply ceases to exist. In this case the WHY is just as bad for both of us, so neither belief is better than the other. It just doesn't matter which you believe, in this case, so believe what you want. Unless one of the two beliefs leads to real harm and suffering of real people in the real world, it just... doesn't... matter. Believe what you want; go nuts.
But of course, it often does lead to real harm and suffering of real people in the real world - especially when people believe they have to do certain things in this life to get that magical happy afterlife. This is where the militant atheists will step in. But until it causes harm, militant atheism has nothing to say: because it's not about just the beliefs and never was.
i, for one, am tired of suffering misery in my own life - and seeing suffering enforced on others - just because some jackass believes, for no good reason, that if he does something to harm others that he will get a better place in this afterlife they believe in, for no good reason.* i suppose that makes me militant... but it's truly sad if that's all it takes to be a militant atheist.
*FYI, i'm not just talking about Islamic terrorists. i'm also talking about the jackasses that believe they have to force underaged and unwed girls to go through with accidental pregnancies and have babies they're not ready for. i'm also talking about the jackasses that believe they have to deny people equal civil - not religious, civil! - rights because of what gender they like to have sex with. i'm also talking about the jackasses that believe they have to interfere with honest people's centuries-old quest to better understand the universe, just because it doesn't conform to what the jackasses what it to be. In other words, in general, i'm talking about every schmuck that tries to force other people to conform to their unwarranted, religious beliefs.
|
