Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism
2/14/2008 – 2:02 pm“As more atheist-centered books and movies make their way to mainstream culture, two best-selling Christian apologists are encouraging churches to better equip their congregation to respond to what they call a more outspoken and “confident” atheism.” I find the funniest part of this article to be: “The arguments are not really new but the ferociousness.” Again no new arguments, but rather that atheists are mean and ferocious for standing up for a point of view. Yet, atheists are given the label “militant” which is complete hyperbole and dangerous nonsense. It is an attempt to cast atheism as a dangerous physical threat, which it isn’t.
I mean let’s be fair here. Atheists aren’t bombing churches. They aren’t setting fire to people’s houses. They haven’t run through the streets with AK47s. Atheists have not formed an inquisition. They aren’t pulling people from their houses. No one has been scuffed, scratched, or even inconvenienced by atheists. In fact all these so-called militant atheists have done is written some books and essays and for the most part attempt to utilize reason against the unreasonable. If churches have to scramble to defend themselves from reason, then it says more about the state of religion than about the state of atheism.
4 Responses to “Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism”
(1) Long wandering side-point :
I think there are two clarifying questions which can be helpful — and these can be asked of any person, theist or atheist.
Q1. Do you want to change what other people think?
Q2. If so, how?
We can all be regarded as thoughtful people who have views on metaphysical questions, regardless of our answer to Q1. But if the answer is “yes,” then a pandora’s box of moral issues is opened.
For example, say you believe in god. Presumably you believe some version of religion, such as christianity, and you believe that it MATTERS how other people on earth act. Maybe you believe it MATTERS whether you convert them or not. Then the “harm” of annoying them, insulting them, displaying disrespect for their atheism, or even introducing violence … is possibly outweighed by the moral benefit of succeeding in converting (some of) them.
And this stance can be taken by atheists as well. Not so much to promote some “view,” but perhaps to promote a hostility to religious views. Do you believe that it’s IMPORTANT to reduce the number of people in your society who believe in god? Do you believe that it would make the world a better place? If so, then engaging theists and “undecideds” … even with some level of disrespect … may be the best course. After all, why is it considered “impolite” to say that no, you don’t believe all this ridiculous nonsense, etc. etc. Rib-man, magic fruit, talking snakes, etc.
Are you willing to harm others if it promotes your views? Do you *care* what others think?
(2) Back to ED’s main point :
“Militant” atheism may be a stretch, and it may not be anything new either! But it is reasonable and accurate to distinguish between people like myself, who have never believed in god, never practised any religion, etc., and think it’s goofy and scary sometimes that people do … and, people like say Christopher Hitchens, who are actually working hard to share their “anti-theist” message and promote a more thoughtful, skeptical population. Or take Sam Harris, who plainly thinks that religion is dangerous and that it’s urgent that society reconsider it’s “tolerance” of this spiritual voodoo that some people subscribe to.
Those people *are* up to something — they are doing their best to change the world for (what they think is) the better.
—
I also applaud ED’s point about reason : if churches have to defend themselves from *words* and *argument* … if there are centuries of intellectual effort by apologists laboring to rationalize all the bizarre contradictions contained in their theology … contradictions and weirdnesses which a 7 year old notices and will ask about in sunday school … well yes, that says a lot.
By frentz on Feb 14, 2008
Militant Atheism - I think not!
Militant is the term the theists use when one of their flock goes out of control.
As far as the ferociousness of the arguments goes, it is simply one of speaking the truth as the atheist sees it, the ferociousness is something the theist infers because he/she doesn’t like the argument, it pricks their cosy bubble.
By Dogbreath on Feb 15, 2008
I think that if people would respect the choices of others, whether they agree or not,
then people would be able to focus on issues
that really matter. It’s when they make what
they believe in the main focus is when problems
start. There are enough problems in this world
and the last thing we need is some religious
nut telling us we are all going to hell if we
don’t confess, or it’s just God’s wrath.
I choose to base my beliefs on truth, not to base my truths on beliefs. I choose to face the truth, accept the truth, and respect the truth whether I like it or not. I am then able to move on and stay focus.
If thy have a boastful tongue let it be that rest on thy head the Crown of Truth.
The destination of wisdom and enlightenment is traveled down the path of humility.
By Eupraxsophy on Sep 14, 2009
Richard Dawkins and his way of speaking has helped me make a nice clean transition from superstitious thinking and illogical religious belief to rational thinking and reason. My life has never been better.
By Atheism New Zealand on Jul 25, 2010