Comments on: Militant Atheists

By: agno-christian

agno-christian — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:25:27 +0000

“The case for a divine Jesus isn’t convincing! duh duh duh duh duh duh duh duh!!” Dude…that was epic.

Seriously, though, Christian dogma needs something called logic.

By: Sabio

Sabio — Mon, 11 May 2009 02:02:40 +0000

Superb job !
I consider myself a lazy Buddhist Atheist.
And I am considered militant — though, of course I don’t identify with “militant” either. So I liked the post. Thanx for making it !

By: Christine

Christine — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:22:45 +0000

Wow, I’m finding this very interesting. Reason being is that I am a professing Christian and the first time I saw the phrase Militant Atheist, my mind automatically went to Islamic extremists with car bombings, etc.

I thought Al, to be very uninformed with his ‘abortion clinic bombings’. I don’t define that as Christian. It’s purely satanic. Of course you probably don’t believe in him either, LOL!

Than you for posting the definition of “militant”, J. J.

I will tell you what most real Christians will think about this “militant” attitude. They will classify ‘militant atheists’ with New Agers, who have tried to silence anybody who believes only in The Creator. Not allowing for any other gods.

I don’t have a problem with what anyboby else wants to believe. Seriously! You can believe in a tree or nothing at all. I don’t care. But I don’t want to be silenced by others who don’t like what I believe.

As this ‘militant atheism’ gains momentum with the younger people, who haven’t yet learned to allow other to believe what they choose, they will and are being branded as fundies. Why? Because when it becomes militant, it becomes a religion and people end up dying for religions eventually. And eventually they try to silence the opposition.

So don’t be surprised if you start getting strange reactions from people if you happen to ‘get in their faces’ with your non-belief.

By the way, I read an articl on one of the Atheist websites that was really refreshing. It was referring to the fact that New Agers won’t classify themselves as having a religion but they act as if they do.

Brilliant! Now try to convince our government of that since they are full-tilt, headlong “Mother Earth” (goddess Gaia) worshippers. And they are teaching it in schools. Where your beliefs and my beliefs are not allowed.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:16:19 +0000

I’ve been a fan for a while too, and I’m only sorry I didn’t tell you sooner. Your video blogs are quite good, and your light still keeps things easy. Onward Atheist Soldiers, forward as to peace!

By: Joel

Joel — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:08:52 +0000

I’m Catholic and I find myself quite fond of your video blogs. Needless to say I don’t aggree with everything, but I get the sense that you’re sincere. Nice work on that video with the fundy and 6000 year old earth bit.

Keep up the good work.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:15:37 +0000

I am sorry that people have called atheists militant simply for speaking their mind. Name calling and insulting hinders good communication. People often see themselves as victims when they actually are oppressive. If you have not already done so, i hope you will read the Bible and consider it for yourself.

Daniel

By: missing

missing — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:34:33 +0000

Hi Al,

keep up the good work.
I am realy missing This Old Earth part 2 and 3.
Where have they gone?
Would be a pleasure to watch them.

greets

By: Socrates Johnson

Socrates Johnson — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:59:21 +0000

oh and yes above I did use ad hominems in my argument against ad hominem-user Dawkins.

“well, we live on different planets (mine is the one with logic and rules to argumentation method.)”

That’s the beautiful part about making a point legitimately. If you can show the other guy is wrong through actual logical deduction, THEN you are free to abuse him or her and still be “right” about your main point. The whole showing you’re right BY abusing them is where I take issue.

By: Socrates Johnson

Socrates Johnson — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:50:50 +0000

sorry that was me above! I just figured I hadn’t been around to abuse people with my command of logic in a while.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:25:08 +0000

Aquaria, Dawkins isn’t combative? well, maybe if we want to define combative as hitting people in hand to hand combat or some such, then yes you’re right. If by that you mean non-abusive, then Dawkins is a rather combative individual, and perhaps a sort of archtypical one. He is someone who frequently attacks those with/against whom he argues with ad hominems (that’s right, it’s abuse, not arguing against, e.g. “religion is nothing but intellectual flabbiness” that’s a beautiful ad hominem.) If abusing people who don’t agree with you isn’t combative, well, we live on different planets (mine is the one with logic and rules to argumentation method.)

As a side point, semantics are fun. Because doesn’t it all depend on what your definition of “sexual relations” and “is” is?

But seriously folks, labeling people doesn’t actually accomplish anything. If the beef is with a particular individuals abusive argumentation methods call them out on that. Comparing them to your particular conception of evil or bad or ridicule worthy doesn’t actually accomplish anything other than slinging back another personal attack… bad form!