How do Christians define "militant"?

[humblesmurph]

In a separate thread, Jac3510, made 3 comments that I find troubling.  

1. Christianity is more rational than atheism

2. Most forms of atheism are based on materialism

3. Militant atheist camps exist

I would like to discuss these comments with Jac3510 or any other Christian that cares to bring clarity to them.  Specifically, I would like to know how Christians define militant, what is the rational basis for their belief, and how one comes to know what most forms of atheism are based on.  

Please note, I am not trying to start a flame war.  I am trying to understand how a sensible, intelligent, person comes to such conclusions.   My bigger fear is that sensible Christians at large might have a false view of what atheism really is.  It is also  possible that I have a misguided view of atheism, and if it could be corrected here, I'd thank anyone willing to give me an education.

[Asmodean]

Well, the first point is simply incorrect, unless morphed by context in some way (Like christians being more rational in certain named aspects of their lives)

The second point is not unusual, but that of ignorance. Again, unless specified otherwise in original context. Atheism is not based on anything nor does it have any forms. It has several degrees, but even those boil down to the same thing.

Atheism, much like baldness, is a lack of something. Here, respectively, belief in god(s) and hair.

Third claim is unknown to me, so I would ask for examples of such camps with atheism as their key ideology.

[hackenslash]

Christianity more rational than atheism? Certainly, if by 'more rational' you mean 'utterly bloody stupid'. Believing in anything with logically absurd or contradictory attributes is just silly, however you slice it:

1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

[Jac3510]

In a separate thread, Jac3510, made 3 comments that I find troubling.  

1. Christianity is more rational than atheism

That's hardly fair, as that is not what I said. I said that if materialism is true, and if an atheist is a materialist, and if rational thought in a materialistic world is agreed to be impossible (in which thought is actually arational), and if it turns out that rational thought really is possible, then such atheism is necessarily irrational whereas Christianity is not. The latter may be irrational for other reasons, but not based on the shear denial of rational thought.

2. Most forms of atheism are based on materialism

And if you are going to force me to be technical:

"Most forms of atheism" should be rendered "The most common or popular form of atheism in academic circles." Secondly, "based on" should be rendered "derived from or arrived at."

The point is relatively simple. Materialism (specifically, materialistic monism) is the dominant view in the scientific community. Such a view rejects the possibility of God's existence a priori, since God is not a material thing. Further, many materialists (NOT ALL) hold to an epistemological position called verificationism, which, while rejected years ago by most philosophers, has remained popular among many scientists who are not trained in epistemology or linguistics. In any case, this view holds that we can only accept what is true if it can be scientifically verified, which, of course, the God-hypothesis cannot. Such a position necessarily leads to atheism.

It is not surprising, then, that the dominant view in academia is a weak form of atheism, as atheism (the very kind espoused on this board) is the necessary conclusion of monistic materialism.

3. Militant atheist camps exist

See Dawkins, et al.

These are people who want to shut down religion, who think that faith is fundamentally bad for humanity. They are "evangelistic" in their beliefs precisely because their atheism is the necessary conclusion of their materialism. If, then, they can convince people of materialism, they can convince people of atheism. More importantly, they view materialism as an inherently better position than any kind of dualism, and, in fact, the latter as a philosophical hindrance to the progression of  mankind in terms of technology, medicine, ethics, politics, etc.

I hope that clarifies my points.

[humblesmurph]

Yes, it does. What you said and what you meant were obviously different.  When you stated "no atheist has the right to claim that atheism is more rational than Christianity" or something like that what you meant was "materialists are either arational or irrational"  When you said some atheists were "militant" you meant that they were "evangelical".  When you were referring to most atheists, you were actually just referring to a very small percentage of atheists, namely those in the scientific community.  Thank you.  It's very clear to me now.  I'm very glad you do not actually hold the views that you seemed to espouse earlier.

[Reginus]

From what I understand, a militant atheist is one who actively and publicly opposes religion.

[PoopShoot]

From what I understand, a militant atheist is one who actively and publicly opposes religion.

So most fanboys of Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens.  Got it.

[Velma]

A militant christian is one who assassinates abortion providers.
A militant muslim is one who blows himself up in the middle of a crowd.
A militant atheist is one who stands in the corner and says aloud quietly, "I am an atheist."

[i_am_i]

By the way, Jac, congratulations on Receiving the Bacon. I remember what it was like for me when I received mine.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In a separate thread, Jac3510, made 3 comments that I find troubling.  

1. Christianity is more rational than atheism

That depends on how the subject, object, and adjective are defined.  And also on who is making such a comment.  I personally reject it, because it violates sensibility to posit a merciful god who creates an eternal hell.  Adhering to such illogic is in my mind irrational.

2. Most forms of atheism are based on materialism.

Most are, I think.

3. Militant atheist camps exist.

Some do, depending on how "militant" is defined.

I would like to discuss these comments with Jac3510 or any other Christian that cares to bring clarity to them.  Specifically, I would like to know how Christians define militant, what is the rational basis for their belief, and how one comes to know what most forms of atheism are based on.  

Please note, I am not trying to start a flame war.  I am trying to understand how a sensible, intelligent, person comes to such conclusions.   My bigger fear is that sensible Christians at large might have a false view of what atheism really is.  It is also  possible that I have a misguided view of atheism, and if it could be corrected here, I'd thank anyone willing to give me an education.

I have highlighted what I think the problem is.

[epepke]

A militant christian is one who assassinates abortion providers.
A militant muslim is one who blows himself up in the middle of a crowd.
A militant atheist is one who stands in the corner and says aloud quietly, "I am an atheist."

That seems approximately right.  It's the subject of the cartoon that hackenslash posted, and it seems approximately confirmed by what Jac3510 explained.

I'm pretty sure that most theists would go positively apeshit if an atheist equated "militant" with "evangelistic."  I don't like Richard Dawkins, mostly because of the treatment of the RDF but also because of what I see as needless confrontation on his part.  However, as far as I know, he has never so much knocked on a door.  Simply by writing books (which nobody has to read) and speaking at conferences (which nobody has to attend) and by helping out with documentaries (which nobody has to watch), he is actually militant to theists.  That is a loaded word (usually loaded with explosives).

[darkcyd]

In a separate thread, Jac3510, made 3 comments that I find troubling.  

1. Christianity is more rational than atheism

That's hardly fair, as that is not what I said. I said that if materialism is true, and if an atheist is a materialist, and if rational thought in a materialistic world is agreed to be impossible (in which thought is actually arational), and if it turns out that rational thought really is possible, then such atheism is necessarily irrational whereas Christianity is not. The latter may be irrational for other reasons, but not based on the shear denial of rational thought.

2. Most forms of atheism are based on materialism

And if you are going to force me to be technical:

"Most forms of atheism" should be rendered "The most common or popular form of atheism in academic circles." Secondly, "based on" should be rendered "derived from or arrived at."

The point is relatively simple. Materialism (specifically, materialistic monism) is the dominant view in the scientific community. Such a view rejects the possibility of God's existence a priori, since God is not a material thing. Further, many materialists (NOT ALL) hold to an epistemological position called verificationism, which, while rejected years ago by most philosophers, has remained popular among many scientists who are not trained in epistemology or linguistics. In any case, this view holds that we can only accept what is true if it can be scientifically verified, which, of course, the God-hypothesis cannot. Such a position necessarily leads to atheism.

It is not surprising, then, that the dominant view in academia is a weak form of atheism, as atheism (the very kind espoused on this board) is the necessary conclusion of monistic materialism.

3. Militant atheist camps exist

See Dawkins, et al.

These are people who want to shut down religion, who think that faith is fundamentally bad for humanity. They are "evangelistic" in their beliefs precisely because their atheism is the necessary conclusion of their materialism. If, then, they can convince people of materialism, they can convince people of atheism. More importantly, they view materialism as an inherently better position than any kind of dualism, and, in fact, the latter as a philosophical hindrance to the progression of  mankind in terms of technology, medicine, ethics, politics, etc.

I hope that clarifies my points.

1st point kinda threw me for a loop.  Rationalizing to me is the act of balancing beliefs with logic and reason. Such feats are done internally by each person and people trying to convey some standard is peddling snake oil.

2nd point is moderately misleading given the negative connotation of materialism in society and I believe that to be more specifically the inference. Trying to pin a socially loaded term to atheists and coin in it reference to needing "material proof."

3rd point I'll agree but I also believe active/militant atheism is just in its infancy. I would also point out that we have had our fair persecution. I believe that to be for 2 reasons. Our refusal to accept any god is not seen a religion and therefore not protected by the first amendment. Atheists have not in the past found a need to be a collective. It is only in response to theist bullying have we found it essential to come together. Now that we are and we have sued the crap out of people who do disparage atheists, most see the next logical step is to spread our disbelief. I guess you reap what you sow or something. Still our militant atheism is not exactly on the same terms as religious fanatics by any stretch of the imagination. See the above cartoon.

[karadan]

From what I understand, a militant atheist is one who actively and publicly opposes religion.

So, isn't that the same as antitheism?

[Asmodean]

A militant atheist is one who stands in the corner and says aloud quietly, "I am an atheist."

Hahah! No, we do go a bit further than that. However, we are not a social club nor an army since being against organised religion and having above average IQ is often all we have in common.