I'm a militant atheist and proud of it!

[Smarmy Of One]

I've met plenty of ignorant atheists too.  No one worldview has a monopoly on brilliance, or stupidity.

Absolutely. But I am referring to a specific ignorance that only religious people enjoy. This is an atheist forum after all.

I'm pretty sure that no one in this thread has advocated tolerating criminal behavior.

No doubt. It was a jab at those who seem to be questioning someone's outrage. Hope that clears things a little for you.

Actually, I think the flow of history is the reverse.  Sects that once banned women in positions of power are now being forced to reconsider those bans.  Sects that once banned gay clergy or laic marriages, likewise.  Even the monolithic Catholic Church has been forced to abandon positions it once defended with fervor; the RCC has, through the molestation scandals, been forced to reconsider, for instance, the celibacy rule.

I don't care if priests are allowed to fuck or not. The fact that the use of condoms is still a matter of debate is absolutely ludicrous. The catholic church has a long history of atrocities that they do nothing to rectify until public pressure becomes too great. I am particularly hard on catholics because I was one, but other faiths are just as slow to accept reality. This damages us all.

That sounds like a need for the ballot box, not the megaphone.

You don't believe in the right to public protest? I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Ballots are not authored without public demand.

Yeah, I'm not sure where the idea was planted that non-confrontational atheists are doing nothing.  However, it is certainly wrong.

Can't disagree with that.

Nice photoshop, btw.

I didn't do the photoshopping. Just found the image and thought it was funny.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Absolutely. But I am referring to a specific ignorance that only religious people enjoy. This is an atheist forum after all.

Indeed, and it behooves us to acknowledge that atheism doesn't prevent facepalm.  I'm sure you know that already.

No doubt. It was a jab at those who seem to be questioning someone's outrage. Hope that clears things a little for you.

Given that no one advocated the protection of molesters, it strikes me as a deeply unfair jab.

I don't care if priests are allowed to fuck or not. The fact that the use of condoms is still a matter of debate is absolutely ludicrous. The catholic church has a long history of atrocities that they do nothing to rectify until public pressure becomes too great. I am particularly hard on catholics because I was one, but other faiths are just as slow to accept reality. This damages us all.

I agree that they hold many absurd positions.  I was merely pointing out that their position is shrinking, and not growing.  They are being dragedd into the future, not dragging us into the past.

You don't believe in the right to public protest?

I'm unsure how my advocating the use of the ballot rather than the megaphone suddenly became my desire to stifle dissent.  Care to map that out for me?

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Ballots are not authored without public demand.

Of course they're not exclusive.  I just think that sometimes hectoring is unproductive, or even counterproductive.

[Smarmy Of One]

I agree that they hold many absurd positions.  I was merely pointing out that their position is shrinking, and not growing.  They are being dragedd into the future, not dragging us into the past.

In certain areas and in some minor ways. The vatican has been making allowances as it sees it's membership shrinking. But this is largely in North America and Europe. Not so much in the rest of the world. And just as their policies may become slightly more accommodating as an appeasement, they can just as easily be reversed again. It is important to be vocal and visible. Dogma, like Mould, grows in the dark. Plus there are many positions held by catholics that are not necessarily on the books. Propaganda that is spread from the church by word of mouth in sermons. Like Obama being the antichrist for example.

Catholics aside, islam is growing more popular each day and it's probably the most dangerous and damaging religion in the world at the moment.

I'm unsure how my advocating the use of the ballot rather than the megaphone suddenly became my desire to stifle dissent.  Care to map that out for me?

It is a question.

Of course they're not exclusive. I just think that sometimes hectoring is unproductive, or even counterproductive.

I didn't say anything about hectoring. I am advocating spreading secular policies with the same veracity that the religious spread theirs.

[The Magic Pudding]

I don't have a problem with some hectoring and protest.
But to get results for birth control and restrictions on science, a common cause could be found with progressive christians.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm unsure how my advocating the use of the ballot rather than the megaphone suddenly became my desire to stifle dissent.  Care to map that out for me?

It is a question.

A loaded question, the premise of which is wrong.  Again, I ask: Care to explain your train of thought?

Of course they're not exclusive. I just think that sometimes hectoring is unproductive, or even counterproductive.

I didn't say anything about hectoring. I am advocating spreading secular policies with the same veracity that the religious spread theirs.

Actually, I'd say we atheists have more veracity on our side.  What I bemoan is the difficulties imposed on the advance of rational thought by those who shoot from the lip.

[Tank]

I didn't say anything about hectoring. I am advocating spreading secular policies with the same veracity that the religious spread theirs.

Actually, I'd say we atheists have more veracity on our side.  What I bemoan is the difficulties imposed on the advance of rational thought by those who shoot from the lip.

He shoots... he scores!!  

The end, removal of collective religious influence from society, does not justify the means, shove all the Jews in a gas chamber. Now I realise that nobody is advocating a 'final solution' to religion in the Nazi sense. However ranting at, and berating,  Catholics for the excesses of the Catholic Church is counter productive. If you start trying to take down the church on the basis of the actions of some of it's members you will actually strengthen the cohesion of the church because it will feel collectively under threat. The behaviour of individuals in the church who have carried out those acts and those that have hidden the events and the perpetrators are culpable and need to be found and punished.

During WWII it was a widely held belief that mass bombing of civilian populations would break their moral. This did not prove to be the case because tribalism is deeply embedded in the human psych. If you want to affect change you have to do it one mind at a time and you don't do that by being perceived as the enemy.

Which guy is the more approachable?

This chap?
[spoiler:3vvb1wp5][/spoiler:3vvb1wp5]

Or this chap?
[spoiler:3vvb1wp5][/spoiler:3vvb1wp5]

Well obviously they are the same guy.

As an atheist I want to be seen like the first guy, friendly and inviting, I don't want to be seen like the second guy, aggressive and mindless. What's more is there is no need or requirement to appear hostile IT IS COMPLETELY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE! See simply using the caps lock changes the tone of the comment from inviting to aggressive. Aggressive ATHEISTS are perceptually no different from aggressive MUSLIMS, they are both just shouting their dogma in a pointless way.

Atheism is a minority world view, we are the ones who have to do the work and it is not aided by an approach that puts atheism in a bad light.

[karadan]

Is it not all relative? I was told i embarrassed a work friend when we were in town on lunch because i confronted a mormon on his silly views. The mormon was the one who approached us so i happily confronted him. The simple act of me politely telling the mormon he was wrong in his beliefs left my workmate - who is herself an apathetic atheist - shocked. Before about three years ago i wouldn't have confronted that mormon. I would have politely declined his leaflet and carried on with my day. To my colleague, i was being militant

I'd never dream of standing on a street corner with a megaphone promoting the beauty of a world without god. To me, that is OTT. But then, maybe i'm not pissed off enough. Maybe if the UK started to become a theocracy, i might pick up that megaphone.

As long as things can stay respectful, ie, no effigies or flag burning, then i don't see the issue with militance, per se.

[Tank]

I have considered getting a sign and a couple of fold up chairs and sitting in the middle of Leeds, me in one chair with the other facing me. The sign would read 'Evangelical Evolutionism'
'Would you like to ask any questions?'

The idea being I would only talk to the person sitting in the seat opposite me. The main reason I have not done this is the grief and aggravation I would get from my other half.  lol

However my facing down the street preachers in Leeds meant they were removed and prohibited from preaching again, which sort of annoyed me as I quite liked debating them. Apparently the ruck I, and others, caused meant the police felt that the preaching could lead to a 'breach of the peace'.

[The Magic Pudding]

The main reason I have not done this is the grief and aggravation I would get from my other half.

Couldn't you go to the next town?

Paul was flamboyant, I don't know what he meant by total war.
Maybe he's just young and enthusiastic.  
He doesn't seem to have returned for a while.

I live in a country where 3 of the last 7 prime ministers were atheist.
People don't loose their jobs and suffer ostracism for non belief.
If I did I'd probably be as pissed off as Paul.

I am a bit uncomfortable with the say nothing and keep the peace approach.
People used to keep quiet about domestic violence, maybe many still do.
The community attitude to drink driving here has changed.

There is no reward for an atheist martyr, but I hope we can give the world a little nudge in the right direction when we can.

[Tank]

The main reason I have not done this is the grief and aggravation I would get from my other half.

Couldn't you go to the next town?

Paul was flamboyant, I don't know what he meant by total war.
Maybe he's just young and enthusiastic.  
He doesn't seem to have returned for a while.

I live in a country where 3 of the last 7 prime ministers were atheist.
People don't loose their jobs and suffer ostracism for non belief.
If I did I'd probably be as pissed off as Paul.

I am a bit uncomfortable with the say nothing and keep the peace approach.
People used to keep quiet about domestic violence, maybe many still do.
The community attitude to drink driving here has changed.

There is no reward for an atheist martyr, but I hope we can give the world a little nudge in the right direction when we can.

If I gave the impression that atheists should keep quiet then I don't think that at all. Every attempt should be made to remove the influence of institutionalised religion from society while defending 'freedom of and from religion' for the individual. My issue with Paul's approach is that it easily turned against us and it serves no useful purpose and that is all. We could write the same song sheet, but I think he'd sing it in a punk style while I would not.  

I think it is generally more effective to have a dialogue and slowly and painstakingly, slice up a religious dogmatists argument and feed it to them than it is to just shout at them, which just makes one look like 'rageboy'.

[The Magic Pudding]

If I gave the impression that atheists should keep quiet then I don't think that at all.

No I don't think that.
I don't think we got to know what Paul meant either.