@kittennose said:
I don't talk to militant theists in real life. Like ever. The closest I get is a militant atheist pointing me at examples that are never within a hundred square miles of me. They don't robocall me or knock on my door. I don't get my science from the science channel. I have never seen it but I assume it is akin to getting your history from the history channel. I would sort of assume the science channel is equally fictitious. I do not care about the all powerful god of theists, so their all powerful plans are of even less concern. I mean I just got done playing New Stardew Mods. Super theists are just not my concern.
Youve missed my point.
You might be some lucky person who does not have to deal with this, but many Americans do. If you live in the South or Midwest, you're probably dealing with it to some degree and on a regular basis, and its always unsolicited. And we can be annoyed with the "militant atheists" all we want, but how often have those been unsolicited? Have not happened within the context of a conversation? Probably not many or not at all right? Even if the religious don't target you, you do at least recognize that there is an extreme level of unsolicited attempted attempted conversion that we simply don't see with non-believers. You do recognize that this is the reality for a lot of people right?
@kittennose said:
I don't get my science from the science channel. I have never seen it but I assume it is akin to getting your history from the history channel. I would sort of assume the science channel is equally fictitious.
I mean..... people should not rely on it as a sole arbitrator of information, but a lot of whats on the science channel is not much different from a visual version of going to see a NDT, Lawrence Kruass, Brian Greene... whatever his name is, Hawkings, speech. Its mostly programs like How the Universe Works, Through the Wormhole, How its Made, Physics of the Impossible W/ michio Kaku. Thats about all i watch on it, but its mostly solid viewing with qualified people.
I definitely wouldn't suggest its on par with the history channel given that the majority of whats on the history channel is reality tv and Ancient Aliens now. The H used to stand for the Hitler Channel, but its not even that anymore.
But none of that is the point and it does not matter if you're viewing this as accurate information or not. The point is that "science" is viewed as the enemy of Christianity and the best way for them to target their enemy (of a different belief system, or non-belief system) is to attempt to convert them, because its all religion knows. So if they were going to target non-believers, instead of respecting them ,this is how they'd do it. And they are. Its simply another example of religion stretching its arm to do what.... is normalized in America and what people are so used to, they're blind to it.
@kittennose said:
Well 'loudly' asking one's self "why shouldn't I be militant?" in the middle of the conversation is kind of the answer. Folks didn't defend atheists because they believed bible thumpers had the wrong book. They defended them because they are not fans of militant idealists in general. If atheists are going to act like bible thumpers then they are going to get thrown in the same bin.
Except the behavior you're highlighting is not a product of "atheism", its a product of oppression and being forced to think another way. This reaction is how anyone reacts after being shoved down and silenced, and then they finally get to speak, with this silencing still attempting to happen on a regular basis. People don't become what you're considering "militant atheists" because they voiced their opinion and then it was respected. And this is when dealing with the loud, in your face people. Now when you say "militant" im applying those people, and the way every non-believer should and probably does feel about religion... its disgusting and unacceptable. You want to suggest being "militant" toward religion is a bad thing, but we are the one's who have to watch the news daily to see some insane shit done in the name of god, and we don't suggest to act in kind.
The best question is, why should you not be militant toward religion when it does everything we see it do? Do you find it acceptable to burn students alive? I don't think you do, but are you suggesting on the scale of "little concern" to "outrage/something needs to change" this falls more into the "little concern" category? You know.... militant is not a bad word, its simply something that needs to be applied appropriately to life.
@kittennose said:
Folks didn't defend atheists because they believed bible thumpers had the wrong book. They defended them because they are not fans of militant idealists in general. If atheists are going to act like bible thumpers then they are going to get thrown in the same bin.
And is this what you're seeing?
Are you really seeing "Atheists" preaching the gospel of something else? Are atheists going door to door dropping off books of Dawkins?
No, none of this shit is actually happening is it? At best you might have witnessed some over-enthused teenagers or young adults who only know a couple of writers on the subject, and tend to cite them too often. And are they saying that the bible thumpers had the wrong book? They just need a new one? Or even then, would they simply be pointing out someone citing historical facts in order to disprove different religious sects?
And we go back to my original problem, even the militant atheists you bring up, do not even remotely begin to act like the religious. Or, i should say, in the way the religious are a fucking problem. Are there loud assholes? Are there loud assholes just along for the ride? Yah sure, you have these with every group. But when we talk about religion and religious people as a problem, this is not one of those problems. People speaking and being annoying is not a problem, its action thats a problem.
Log in to comment