…and this is a 
Militant atheists are a cliché
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: June 6, 2007 1:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Jeffrey Shallit explains why. It is rather peculiar, when you get right down to it: isn't it remarkable how just criticizing religion gets people flustered and cowering in a corner?
Now look at this otherwise unnoteworthy article by Associate Press religion reporter Rachel Zoll, about the reaction to recent books by atheists Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Notice anything, well, trite about the title? Yes, it's the "militant atheist" platitude. Atheists must never be described as intelligent, thoughtful, friendly, questioning, or thought-provoking. Instead, they must be described as "militant".
From the meaning of "militant", you might expect that Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are burning down churches, or at least leading protests, stirring up crowds with their fiery rhetoric. You would be disappointed, of course. What Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens have done is write books. Hitchens is more of a curmudgeon than a militant, and Dawkins and Harris are both rather mild-mannered. Nobody is leaving their public events carrying torches and singing the atheist analogue of the Horst Wessel song.
We need a complementary cliché for the theists. I vote for "goofy".
Comments
Goofy wasn't one of my favourite cartoon characters, but I'd like to believe even he would not want to be associated with cretinistas and faithissomos.
Posted by: blf | June 6, 2007 1:18 AM
Goofy is OK, though I think that any of the seven dwarves' (vertically challenged chaps?) names could apply to my atheism depending upon the day. Especially Grumpy and Happy.
Posted by: Angie | June 6, 2007 1:25 AM
well, "militant" is applied to lots of groups that don't burn down buildings.
it just means that you actively go after the competing philosophy (or whatever), instead of quietly holding your opinions to yourself. it's a sub-grouping.
see also: "militant feminism."
Posted by: arachnophilia | June 6, 2007 1:28 AM
I like "poofy". Oh those theists, they are so dern "poofy"!
Posted by: 386sx | June 6, 2007 1:30 AM
With the democrat candidates falling over themselves to demonstrate their faith in supernatural religion, I'm not expecting things to change anytime soon.
I don't like the word atheist. I prefer humanist. There's no such thing as a 'militant humanist'.
As I said before- atheism is inherently boring. What's to discuss? I haven't learnt a single new thing about atheism from reading 100's of PZ's posts. (That's not a criticism- I have learnt a lot about other topics.)
I'm more interested in exploring humanist moral philosophy in the absence of faith, or belief in a god.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | June 6, 2007 1:31 AM
I've actually just been thinking about this very thing. We need to brand them superstitious. People can relate to that. Republicans are superstitious in their ridiculous religious beliefs, in their abstenence only education, in their security (see Bruce Schneier on security theater), in their war on drugs. Everything these people do is based on modern superstitions. It can go beyond theists to the entire autocratic and authoratarian mindset.
Goofy does not cover that type of ground.
Posted by: TomK | June 6, 2007 1:37 AM
Vainglorious? Acquiescent? Bumptious? Ovine?
Posted by: Kseniya | June 6, 2007 1:37 AM
First, they sold "communist" as a term of righteous opprobrium. When that didn't work anymore they marketed "Secular Humanism" but the sheeple couldn't understand the concept. That was suceeded by "Secular Progressive" and that was an even tougher sell.
Now the "Militant Atheists" are out to getcha with a War on Jesus! I suggest that "Atheist Terrorist" is next on the list. In the Dominionist rubric any misfortune visited on the populace is just punishment for the failure of some of the people to follow the "Word of God". Therefore "Sin" becomes "terrorism" as soon as we can get the law passed.
Posted by: skeptic8 | June 6, 2007 1:38 AM
"Especially Grumpy and Happy."
I'm not Happy.
Y'know, I think the reason that just criticizing religion is enough to earn the "militant" label is because it cuts too close to the bone. As Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing something you know isn't so." Assuming a modicum of insincerity on the part of believers, that means the majority of theists know God is bunk, they just don't want to be reminded of it. So the criticisms from atheists offend in two different ways. First, there's the very simple inference from "God is silly" to "Anyone who believes in God is silly," which can be construed as an insult. And second, there's the reminder that, well, everybody knows God is silly, but raising the issue just aggravates the cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: Grumpy | June 6, 2007 1:45 AM
dopey!
stumblebum?
craptastic?
deluded is good.
Posted by: garth | June 6, 2007 1:46 AM
#9: isn't that what dennett was saying when he posited that the majority of "believers" were actually believers in the goodness of belief, not so much in the truth of said belief?
he said it a lot more clearly than i did. i kinda butchered it there. read dennett. he rules.
Posted by: garth | June 6, 2007 1:50 AM
Stirring up some crowds with
fiery rhetoricforthright, passionate critique actually sounds like a good idea.Posted by: Russell Blackford | June 6, 2007 1:50 AM
I don't know, I always thought of the lot of us as a nameless and formless horde.
Wait, can we be the Golden Horde?
Posted by: Janine | June 6, 2007 1:51 AM
Touchy theists.
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 6, 2007 2:16 AM
How about 'anatheists'?
Even better... 'anaturalists', or 'faithiests'.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | June 6, 2007 2:30 AM
'Militant' primarily means 'fighting' or 'having a tendency to fight,' or secondarily 'aggressive.' Neither definition implies a penchant for group action, demogoguery or terrorism as Shallit would have it.
Nor does either definition connotate particular confidence, dogmatism or stubbornness as Zoll would have it. Someone who is really sure they're atheist isn't necessarily any more 'militant' than someone who is only pretty sure.
I don't know Harris's work well, but Dawkins, in his polite professorial manner, and Hitchens, in his drunken bar-oaf manner, are both 'militant.' If you're willing to quarrel publically, and particularly if you're willing to intiate the quarrel, then you are 'militant.' If you're willing to start a fight over being called militant then you are definitely 'militant.' It's not an insult, even if Zoll and her Moonie bosses at the AP think it is.
Good night, you militants.
Posted by: lockean | June 6, 2007 2:34 AM
Oh? So, when the same talking heads that spout off about "militant atheists" refer to "militant Islam", what they're refering to are Muslims who don't hide in a closet pray to mecca and who are occasionally heard to opine that other religions aren't really all that?
Posted by: Sophist | June 6, 2007 2:40 AM
well, "militant" is applied to lots of groups that don't burn down buildings
In the cultural battle, it's common to use words that have pejorative meanings to refer to your opponents as a means to vilify them. Whether or not it is "technically correct" or not is not necessarily the point. Let's imagine a scale of aggressiveness ranging from 0 to 100, where 0 is non-confrontational, and 100 is no-limits physical violence. Let's say that being outspoken and quick to argue with people who disagree with you puts you at 65. At level 80 and above, you engage in physical violence. Now, let's say that the term "militant" covers a spectrum from 60 to 100. By branding someone a militant who is a "65", you actually get to lump them in with violent people, even terrorists. While the term might be considered "technically accurate", it still produces an emotional distaste because the term "militant" doesn't indicate whether your a "65", an "85", or even a "100". These terms are carefully chosen to vilify opponents and play on people's tendency to think in categories (e.g. "I don't like militants"). The pejorative term 'militant' includes enough bad people to invoke an emotional dislike of all people in that group. Effectively, this is exactly what people are doing with they use the term "militant atheist" or "militant feminist".
Posted by: tinyfrog | June 6, 2007 2:51 AM
This "debate" (actually the deists calling people names, because they don't have an argument) is also going on in Britain:
See these links ...
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article1860734.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece
and
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article1784953.ece
Posted by: G. Tingey | June 6, 2007 2:55 AM
I have to agree with Lock. I wanted to fight the whole militant thing, but really, militant just means that you are willing to stand behind and defend your view, which I am thoroughly willing to do. But then when militant is applied it has that... tinge of foulness to it, much like the tinge of foulness that surrounded the word "feminism" while I was growing up (in the 70's and 80's) It seems that when the ubiquitous "they" want to supress or demean or generally discourage a gorup of people, "they" call that group militant and therefore that group can be dismissed as nutty.
sigh.
Posted by: 5ive | June 6, 2007 2:58 AM
Militant atheists may be a cliche, but they do exist. Madelyn O'Hair was one, and I've run into a few others in my time. They are of course considerably outnumbered by the atheists who will simply decline to discuss superstition with the superstitious unless pressed to do so.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | June 6, 2007 3:09 AM
Militant Atheist, Radical Atheist, and whatever other pejorative terms they throw at us really boil down to indignation at the idea that we treat their claims just like any other, and consider them on the merits of evidence and reasoning rather than tradition and emotional manipulation. How very rude of us.
Posted by: Lunacrous | June 6, 2007 3:29 AM
I refuse to find it insulting. It is somewhat like saying, "You ardently demand truth and validity." Contrasted with the other "killing for my imaginary friend" extreme, it is quite pleasant. Then again, I would be equally pleased to be accused of communism. Rationalism, social justice and equity for all under the law, what a horrid accusation. Of course, the second term has a lot worse baggage than the first, but I still prefer to accept pejorative as praise when possible.
Posted by: MR | June 6, 2007 3:55 AM
Militant atheist is a fair term for Dawkins, Harris et al. Dawkins himself called for a more militant atheism at the TED conference.
The problem though, as Sophist pointed out, is that it makes it easy for theist moderates to pull the 'equivalence ploy' and suggest that there are unreasonable fundamentalists on both the religious and the atheistic sides of the continuum, and that the only reasonable position to take is somewhere in the middle--not rocking the boat.
Posted by: bitbutter | June 6, 2007 4:05 AM
While I think "militant" theoretically means "aggressively active (as in a cause)" (thank you, Merriam Webster!), in practice people tend to hear it as meaning either "intractable" or "violent."
But it really is one of those words that you use to deride people for standing up for their cause as firmly as you stand up for yours. I am passionate; you are militant; he/she is an extremist. If people want to try to reclaim it, by all means go for it -- hey, I'm a queer dyke, I'm all for reclaiming derogatory words -- but I personally feel like I'm having a hard enough time trying to rid "atheist" of its negative connotations, without adding "militant" to the list.
And let's not forget "fundamentalist atheist." As if there were some atheist text which we all interpret literally.
Posted by: Greta Christina | June 6, 2007 4:36 AM
"Militant" is one of those words like (to take a topical example) "theory" that has two meanings, the technically correct one that knowledgeable people may use and the common meaning understood by the general population. When creationists say "Evolution is just a theory", well, they are right in the technical sense. But that is not the meaning that they are intentionally conveying to their audience, which is "Evolution is something that could just as easily be wrong."
"Militant" has the meaning of staunch advocate or simply aggressive that some of you are pointing out above, but it has a more commonly understood meaning too, which is "willing to employ violence for a cause". Especially in recent years, "militant" the noun has come to be exclusively used in common English for those engaged in violence.
It isn't just some innocent mistake that religious people have seized upon the term "militant atheists". They know that it evokes fears in their audience that atheists are headed toward violence. This is in keeping with, in America at least, the Christian hobby of portraying themselves as being a persecuted group. The fact that there are two meanings lets them equivocate with plausible deniability.
You can quote dictionaries all you want, but as long as the term "militant atheist" goes unanswered, it'll be used to disregard anything an atheist has to say. The "I'm Militant and I'm Proud!" tactic is only going to get you put on government watchlists.
(Personally, I think the answer is to constantly refer to any pro-religious writer/speaker as a "militant" until the term ceases to mean anything in that context, or at least until you annoy your opponent into not using the term himself.)
Posted by: jpf | June 6, 2007 4:41 AM
'Sin-promoting', 'death-worshipping', 'utopia-addled', 'self-wrongeous', 'Hell-bearing', theofascists are essentially human haters. I think there's many an appropriate adjective but if you seek something sweet and snappy, 'vicious christianist' oughta do it.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | June 6, 2007 5:01 AM
I remember that Douglas Adams used to describe himself as a "militant atheist" because, he explained, if he just said "I'm an atheist", people would respond, "Oh, you mean you're an agnostic, right?", which angered him no end. No, he bloody well did not mean he was an agnostic; he meant atheist, and so he tacked on the "militant" adjective to hammer home his point.
I think we all miss him. Were he still alive, he would probably have written his own book alongside those by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et. al.
Posted by: Kimpatsu | June 6, 2007 5:01 AM
I think the sticker militant atheism should be saved for Stalin, Mao and other atheists who have indeed used violent means. Radical atheists is a more fitting description for Dawkins et al.
Posted by: forsen | June 6, 2007 5:30 AM
I think I like the phrase "superstitious goofballs" best. It has a nice ring to it.
Cheers,
Ray
Posted by: Ray | June 6, 2007 5:37 AM
If we're going to frame people by using prefixed descriptions, why not cut to the chase?
Nutjob theists.
They may well be offended, but at least the ones we'd be talking about would then be properly identified - and respectable theists (which there are, and whom we should refer to as such) would then be forced to draw a line in the sand between them and the nutjob theists.
After all, part of the problem is that no good theist wants to break ranks and say that their fellow theists is a loony, even is they suspect it - and especially as the nutjob theists are doing their "you're either as holy as I am, or a sinner!" routines.
Nutjob theist allows moderate, respectable theists to stand up and say "I'm not like them". If they choose not to take that opportunity, that's their loss.
(And if we choose not to graciously say we accept their moderate theism and weren't referring to them, that's our loss.)
Posted by: Philip Storry | June 6, 2007 5:40 AM
Forsen,
Stalin learned his ethics in the seminary, and even if he and Mao were atheists, their atheism had nothing to do with their actions. Consequently, using attempting to categorise them as a "different kind of atheist" is counterproductive.
Posted by: Kimpatsu | June 6, 2007 6:04 AM
Kimpatsu @ #27: Douglas Adams referred to himself a radical atheist rather than a militant atheist. (If memory serves; I don't have The Salmon of Doubt handy. I may be wrong, but I am certain.)
Posted by: Petter Hesselberg | June 6, 2007 6:28 AM
#30 I think that's a bit weak, so I'd suggest Christian terrorist:
terrorism:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
ter•ror•ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
terror
a state of intense fear
(from merriam-webster.com)
Given that these preachers and others try to instil a state of intense fear into their followers and more especially those that do not follow them (wrath of God, eternal damnation in hell, being left behind after the rapture etc.) I would suggest that the term "Christian terrorist" fits them perfectly.
Posted by: mah9 | June 6, 2007 6:37 AM
Out of curiosity I went a-Googling and found something you might not want to read unless your blood pressure meds are up to date. Beyond the cliché, the author of this Guardian piece also uses words like pretentious and cowardly and calls the current crop "angry ageing men."
Oh, there were only about 14 references in Google news and 47,300 in a general web search.
Posted by: John Pieret | June 6, 2007 6:41 AM
"...the atheist analogue of the Horst Wessel song." Oooh, now *there's* something that would be worth some time to come up with. Something pirate-y that goes with beer, methinks?
Re descriptive terms for the religious, I'd prefer instead to think of a better adjective for sincere, committed atheists than "militant" (but something less boringly earnest than "sincere, committed"). Personally, I've always liked "bodacious."
Posted by: Jud | June 6, 2007 6:53 AM
Assuming that people strive to avoid redundancy, the term 'militant atheist' would imply that there is such a thing as a non-militant atheist. How do you qualify for the latter classification? By just shutting up? My impression is that some of the militant atheist-sayers are such stay-in-the-closet atheists. They can't accept their own ideas and are shocked when others express them. Compare it to the struggle of certain homosexual people.
Posted by: amph | June 6, 2007 6:58 AM
I prefer to be called a heathen. They think it's an insult and I think it's a compliment, everyone's happy!
Posted by: RamblinDude | June 6, 2007 7:03 AM
Since when has the word "goofy" become synonymous with Authoritarian Fear Monger?
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | June 6, 2007 7:12 AM
I don't mind the term "Militant Atheist" all that much. It makes me think of hanging out in the jungle, smoking cigars and pretty much waiting for the zombies to come.
Posted by: Dan | June 6, 2007 7:25 AM
Actually, I'm one of those that refuses to call himself an atheist. Sure, atheism is one of the features of my worldview, but "atheist" does not define me. Did any of you listen to the Infidel Guy podcast in which he had a guy who was in contact with flat-earhters? Many of them don't believe in God or even supernaturalism.
They do believe that the earth is accelerating upwards (don't ask me how they solve the huge number of problems that arise only from that assumption) at 9.8 m/s², and that there is some sort of accelerating force (a natural force) that is pushing it. Just Newton goes way over their heads, let alone Einstein. I think I'd rather be associated with a moderate religious person.
Posted by: Oh, fishy, fishy, fishy, fish! | June 6, 2007 7:30 AM
Speaking of people who get agitated in the face of critcism, just try questioning evolution!
They go apoplectic and start running around saying creationism is taking over politics, schools, EVERYTHING!
Talk about paranoia.
But I suppose it makes the life of a post middle aged associate prof who has to live in MORRIS seem meaninglful to have bogyeman to fight!
Posted by: Christensen, Kansas Bogeyman | June 6, 2007 7:34 AM
I wonder if calling atheists "militant" is just a simple case of projection.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | June 6, 2007 7:48 AM
I think that, henceforth, whenever either theists or atheists use tired arguments, they ought to be referred to as "clichétheists".
Posted by: ken welsch | June 6, 2007 7:48 AM
Militant? Are they burning down churches? Planting bombs? Beating people up in the streets? Because beyond the sterile dictionary definition of a word is the cultural over-lay.
Radical? It's not "radical" to eschew belief if fairies, the Loch Ness monster, or any other 'pagan' belief. Why is not believing in a derivative religion descended from multiple polytheistic religions, including sub-sects which practiced human sacrifice, radical?
And if we're going to measure people by these pejorative terms, why is it they're not applied to Christians and Christian Leaders who are, by the empirical evidence, far more "militant" and "radical" in their behaviors than atheists. Frankly, from what I've seen in life, the vast majority of atheists just want to be left alone and are, rightly, afraid to discuss their non-beliefs due to the social stigma that will attach.
Posted by: Moses | June 6, 2007 7:49 AM
@Christensen, Kansas Bogeyman
You're saying that Prof. Myers' life had no meaning until this blog? Are you serious?
He's raised three (I believe) children, been married to the same woman for most of his life (which is more than I can say of many prominent Christians), and has educated hundreds, if not thousands, of young people.
That's not meaningful?
Posted by: Bachalon | June 6, 2007 7:56 AM
What Madelyn O'Hair did for atheism is a fraction of what Falwell and Dobson have fought for on behalf of evangelicals, but who calls them militant Christians?
Posted by: False Prophet | June 6, 2007 7:57 AM
Another phrase: Doggerel #71: "Fundamentalist Atheist"
Posted by: Bronze Dog | June 6, 2007 8:07 AM
It is rather peculiar, when you get right down to it: isn't it remarkable how so many otherwise-intelligent people keep confusing the position being taken with the tactics being used, and think that critics are criticizing the former when in fact they're criticizing the latter?
Quite possibly the thing that annoys me most about militant (or "radical," if you prefer) atheists is that they talk and act exactly like radicals of any other religion, right down to the automatic expressions of contempt for anyone who disagrees with them -- and then they pretend to not understand why normal, intelligent folks treat them the same as radicals of any other religion: amused disgust, mixed with nervousness shading into outright fear if it ever looks like they might achieve any real power. The most dangerous thing on Earth is a missionary with power, and that's as true of atheist missionaries as it is of any other breed.
Posted by: wolfwalker | June 6, 2007 8:11 AM
I think tinyfrog's onto something. There has been, to my knowledge, one case of a group calling itself "militant atheist," and that was the Stalinist "League of Militant Atheists" in the late 1920s/early 1930s, who went round burning down churches and mosques, or turning them into "People's Meeting Houses" and the like. Fact is, of course, that the League wasn't so much in the business of propagating atheism per se, as it was in the business of propagating "scientific Marxism" or, more bluntly, they didn't want you worshipping God primarily because that would distract you from worshipping Comrade Stalin. The League wouldn't have approved of an atheist who endorsed laissez-faire capitalism.
I suspect the term "militant atheist" continues to be used in order to equate atheism with Stalinism in the minds of the vaguely religious and historically uninformed.
Posted by: Jurjen S. | June 6, 2007 8:15 AM
Atheism is surely, by definition, an extremist cult. If you say, "There IS no god", then you are equipping yourself with the same level of information as the people who say "God is Great". (How do they know? It might be a paramecium.)
Radical, intolerant, heavily-armed agnosticism is the way to go, folks.
Posted by: MFB | June 6, 2007 8:15 AM
I second Tom K for "superstitious" for the religious crowd, or alternatively "irrational". Those not believing in fairies or gods should be called "rational". If they insist on spouting their views like PZ thy should be called "determined rationalists" or "outspoken rationalists"
Posted by: sailor | June 6, 2007 8:22 AM
I prefer the simple term "outspoken atheist" (which I am - perhaps sadly - not). Its a suitable adjective because it not only accurately describes the actions, but also contrasts them with more aggressive actions that one might consider "militant".
Posted by: Brian Thompson | June 6, 2007 8:55 AM
I don't. It's not like I worshipped myself...
ana- means "apart", as in anatomy = "cutting apart".
No, because "just a theory" is a contradiction in itself.
You have a point here, but I like apathetic agnosticism better. :-)
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 6, 2007 8:59 AM
Ditsy is the word you're looking for.
Posted by: Gork | June 6, 2007 9:03 AM
PZ needs to be less militant and more accepting of people like Francis Collins. His militant rhetoric is the reason people think college dropout Ed is way smarter than PHD earnin' PZ.
Ed wants your lunch money, by the way.
Posted by: Raging Braytard | June 6, 2007 9:07 AM
"We need a complementary cliché for the theists. I vote for "goofy"."
I've always liked "drone".
OEJ
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | June 6, 2007 9:24 AM
Cutting you off at your straw man right there. Why don't you try actually listening to what atheists actually think?
As for wolfwalker: Please, demonstrate how our rhetoric is exactly the same. Personally, I always see a gigantic world of difference: Atheists are far less likely to employ logical fallacies. When an atheist encounters a dissenter, they're more likely to point out that dissenter's logical fallacies. Theists are more likely to express horror at the very idea of dissent, rather than fallacious reasons for dissent.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | June 6, 2007 9:26 AM
Outspoken atheist sounds good (I also like 'passionate atheist', mentioned above).
. . . And to prove the point of the post, Christensen - who we can presume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is upset at his religion being criticized - gets all grade-school personal. How accommodating!
" (How do they know? It might be a paramecium.)
With irreducibly complex cilia!
Although that starts sounding like a heretical offshoot of Flying Spaghetti Monster-ism - touched by His Ciliate Appendage . . .
Posted by: Dan S. | June 6, 2007 9:50 AM
Christensen, Kansas Bogeyman spewd
Hi Legion! *waves
I think Militant Ignoramuses is a good one to use for the theists.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 6, 2007 9:53 AM
Although I really shouldn't assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that Christensen is a he - sorry 'bout that.
____
Is absence of belief belief of absence?
Posted by: Dan S. | June 6, 2007 9:54 AM
In the spirit of the proceedings and on the basis of what I've seen here, I offer up the fitting and alliterative (media love that) 'asshat atheists'.
That is unfair to some of the atheists here and elsewhere, but when on Pharyngula, do as the Pharyngulans do.
Posted by: Mike | June 6, 2007 10:02 AM
What _is_ "The atheist version of the Horst Vessel song"??? It sounds like we need one!!
Perhaps something to the Marine Corps Hymn tune, "from the ooze of the primordial soup, to the edge of saturn's rings - our ancestors died to give us these brains, and our eyes that we might see!"??
I'm not a "militant" atheist, damn it - I'm a "contemptuous" atheist. It's a whole different vibe. I think the faithful understand conflict and militancy _really_ well, so they're just projecting religious attitudes on us. After all, it's a lot easier to feel attacked than laughed at.
The message we need to get out to young people is that "religion is not cool" and "believers are goofy"
mjr.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 6, 2007 10:09 AM
At this point, 2000 years after fantasy Jesus purportedly rose from the dead, the only good atheist is a militant atheist.
There is no god. Tolerating people who talk about that fake entity and his emissary as if they existed is tolerating willful stupidity.
There are tons of religious people out there, mutually mentally masturbating over God. Unless more people stand up and get pissed off, their belief system will never be defeated.
I'm sorry. But it's time for religion to go onto the ash heap.
Everyone who believes can figure out something to do on the weekends besides worshipping of a ficticious being.
Half the world already ignores religion. Time for the other half to follow suit.
Posted by: George | June 6, 2007 10:15 AM
Personally, I'm an agnathic.
Makes it kinda hard to chew . . .
Plus, I don't think it's possible to have certain knowledge of the existence of lampreys and hagfish. My wife's somewhat less of a militant aganthic than me, though, claiming only that we can't ever know whether Cephalaspis really swam upstream into fresh water to spawn,* as depicted in the holy BBC special Walking With Monsters . . .
* actually, that part's real - we were watching it the other day and she became quite indignant. Also about Hynerpeton males having what's described as 'push-up contests' over mates - but there she goes too far; sometimes you just gotta have faith . . . : )
Posted by: Dan S. | June 6, 2007 10:16 AM
The news just reported that the most popular name for newborn boys in England will soon be Mohammed. You will need that militancy.
Posted by: Looney | June 6, 2007 10:17 AM
What, no one used "strident atheist"? Seems like that was de rigeur for every "review" of atheist books.
As for theists, how about "inhumanists"? (Got that from the Church of the SubGenius.)
-- CV
Posted by: CortxVortx | June 6, 2007 10:21 AM
Umm...no?
Posted by: MartinM | June 6, 2007 10:22 AM
(Re: the earlier poster's comment about "militant" being used to try to make a linkage with stalinism...)
I just finished a second fast reading through Hitchen's "God is not great" and he makes a number of very interesting points about Stalin as the primary example of what happens when atheists get in power. It's the weakest chapter of the book, by far, IMO - he touches on Stalin and Kim Jong Il but doesn't do a decent hatchet-job on Mao. One of the points that I thought was particularly interesting was that Stalin actually attended seminary school as a young man. However, he clearly loved political power more than god. :)
I always find it odd that the faithful point at Stalin (or Hitler or Mao!) as examples of what happens when atheists come to power. Stalin launched gigantic campaigns to kill Jews -- what is "Jew" to an atheist, anyhow? It's a meaningless distinction, really. Ditto Hitler - what about "Kill all the Jews" (and his constant references to Christ) is atheistic. And Mao was raised buddhist and was (probably like Stalin) simply more in love with power than religion. Most political leaders are more in love with power than religion. It's amazing that when a power-hungry psycho with a thin veneer of atheism causes an atrocity it's atheism's fault but when a power-hungry psycho becomes pope it's divine will.
mjr.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 6, 2007 10:24 AM
"What _is_ "The atheist version of the Horst [W]essel song"??? It sounds like we need one!!"
No. No no no! We don't!
Posted by: Dan S. | June 6, 2007 10:27 AM
Something pirate-y that goes with beer, methinks?
Hmmm... re-write Barrett's Privateers? (It also goes excellently with scotch and cider).
Posted by: Graculus | June 6, 2007 10:28 AM
I like 'outspoken atheist'. It's reasonably accurate and not particularly slanted either way.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 6, 2007 10:48 AM
George: Yeah, what you said. With one minor quibble. Re:
I'm sorry. But it's time for religion to go onto the ash heap.
... I can't agree with the 'I'm sorry' part.
Honestly, tho', re the current imbroglio over terms, the way I see it, it's just a matter of grasping how popular usage has redefined these labels.
So what's important for readers to understand is simply that the terms i) militant atheist, ii) dogmatic atheist, iii) secular extremist, iv) simplistic critic of religion, and v) fundamentalist atheist are all now standard terms that refer to one of two things. Either:
(1) an outspoken critic of a popular superstition that has had the temerity to make the bestseller list, or
(2) an outspoken critic of popular superstition who has had the sheer cheek to speak out at all, in any forum whatsoever, online or off.
So no, I can't say I find these labels particularly insulting, myself. I've been called worse by better.
Now, as to this notion of attaching an appropriate adjective to 'theist', to make up an equivalent cliche, I suppose I see the rhetorical value. But for my part, I have to say I find it redundant.
I mean, I'd find 'theist' pretty insulting, in its rather unpleasant ramifications, all on its own.
Posted by: AJ Milne | June 6, 2007 10:50 AM
Wolfwalker wrote and then they pretend to not understand why normal, intelligent folks treat them the same as radicals of any other religion
Wolfwalker, would you be claiming to be one of those 'normal intelligent people'?
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 6, 2007 10:51 AM
I am a "Godless-Opining-Determined-Philosophical- Atheistic-Truth-Seeking-Yahoo"
I may start a club called the GODPAT...? Oh, CRAP! Never mind.
Posted by: RamblinDude | June 6, 2007 10:59 AM
Nobody has mentioned my favorite modifier yet: "mad dog". I think we all ought to be mad dog atheists.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 6, 2007 11:00 AM
On the other hand, I rather like the Marine Corps Hymn rewrite . . .
Looney (truth in advertising?) -calm down; Mohammed/Muhammad is the 22th most popular boy baby name in England&Wales (as it's been since at least '02, with a slight dip down to #23 in '05). It was news apparently because it finally beat out "George" (and "Joseph"). On the girls' side, "Freya" has been rocketing up the charts, going from #51 in '02 to #23 in '06. Perhaps a resurgence of Norse paganism is in the works? (for that matter, Freja was the 5th most common baby girl's name in Denmark in '05, jumping up from #10 in '05. Will this comic become even more relevant than we realize?
OT: oooooh: "World's oldest adornments found, Morocco says."
Posted by: Dan S. | June 6, 2007 11:02 AM
I'm always amazed when religious defenders and apologists try to insinuate they're somehow "intelligent". They may be "common" but there's nothing intelligent about accepting that some entity they've never seen, heard, or been presented evidence for (other than an ancient, thousand-times-over revised cobbled-together text and anecdotal evidence from clergy who have a vested interest in maintaining this acceptance) has complete control over the universe and their lives, to the extent of planting false evidence to "throw off" the less-than-faithful. I just re-read that sentence and it made me shake my head yet again at this "normal" "intelligent" system. Good grief!
Posted by: garth | June 6, 2007 11:07 AM
How about a construct on "nescience" that denotes a belief cosmology with a pejorative connotation of wilful ignorance?
Posted by: Skeptic8 | June 6, 2007 11:12 AM
If I'm talking about my atheism among a group, I tell them I'm out as an atheist, precisely because I refuse to keep my atheism in a closet. Militant is the pejorative ascribed to anybody who won't stay in the closet.
We're here, we're not insane, get used to it.
As for an epithet for those afflicted with the superstition du jour, I'll bet you can't use just one. It'll never catch on, but I sometimes think of theists as pixie dusters, since they counter our naturalism with the belief that they and their world are not natural, but artificial, artifacts magically bibbety bobbity booed into existence in a sprinkling of pixie dust.
Posted by: Ken Cope | June 6, 2007 11:27 AM
Hmm, wow these dirty atheists sure are a religion, look at how they all think alike!
C'mon people, first, down with "atheist", it's a presumptuous term. It's what theists like to call us, and it's why all of those numbnuts think we "deny" God, hence we are as dogmatic as they are. When in reality, we're just placing educated bets, given what we know now, what we've failed to know in the past, and where science is clearly taking us. Like 1 to 3 trillion, four thousand six hundred seventy eight billion, nine thousand ninety five million, seven thousand sixty-two against. I mean, give or take, of course. How can we be sure?
Posted by: Oh, fishy, fishy, fishy, fish! | June 6, 2007 11:53 AM
"isn't it remarkable how just criticizing religion gets people flustered and cowering in a corner?"
What I find less remarkable is how criticizing people who happen to be religious gets folks flustered. Dawkins and Harris spend a lot of time trying to convince their readers that religious people, not just religious ideas, are bad. Consider, for instance, their vilification of moderates and "appeasers."
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | June 6, 2007 11:55 AM
Gay animal rights: "We're here; we're queer; and we're DEER!" (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
"Militant atheists" must be even harder to organize than militant pro-choice activists. Just imagine the motivation to drag someone out of their comfy chairs to rally in the street for "yeah, whatever you want to believe, no matter how silly; I'll just KNOW you're not totally rational." That's even harder than, "Yeah, you do what you want, it's your body" compared to "ALL YOUR UTERUS R BELONG TO US!" At least the pro-choicers can be motivated when they realize that forcing a woman to bear children against her will is a greater evil than terminating a pregnancy; that restricting abortion leads to later abortions; and that banning abortion kills women.
The atheists, Unitarians, relativists, ecumenical beings, and other tolerant folks have to wake up to the fact that letting non-tolerant religious folks interfere in public affairs or with freedom of belief leads to long-term deficits in human happiness, education, economic growth, and reproductive freedom. It's the equivalent of worrying about overpopulation since the 60s and global warming since the 80s.
Posted by: Monado | June 6, 2007 11:57 AM
Like 1 to 3 trillion, four thousand six hundred seventy eight billion, nine thousand ninety five million, seven thousand sixty-two against. I mean, give or take, of course. How can we be sure?
I'd go with '1 to 3 trillion, four thousand six hundred seventy eight billion, nine thousand ninety five million, seven thousand sixty-two against-ist', but it's jes' a bit much for a lapel button, really.
'My bookie sez get real-ist'?
'When pigs fly-ist'?
'I know I can't technically and absolutely disprove your superstition... Indeed, the stated belief is so hazily defined and subject to special-pleading-friendly post hoc dissembling toward evading negation that actual evidence in any direction whatsoever has been rendered effectively irrelevant to the whole discussion... But that's actually one of the most damning charges against the whole incredibly stupid notion-ist'?
Nah. Think I'm gonna stick with what I got. But I'll tack on PZ's 'mad dog' happily, too. It speaks to me.
Posted by: