Total Pageviews

Monday, March 19, 2012


The term "militant atheist" has been thrown around a lot these days, mostly by non-athesits.  So allow me to enlighten you.

This is the belt-buckle of a militant Christian, also known as a Nazi.  The organization persecuted and brutally murdered many millions of Jewish people, not to mention all the soldiers involved.

This is a militant Muslim.  By the looks of it, she is trying to top the aforementioned militant Christians in terms of global atrocities.  I'm fairly certain we call these people "terrorists."

Here is some grafiti drawn by a militant Jew.  Notice the very explicit call for murder, located on the right side of the image. That is how we know the image is militant.

This is a member of the new atheist movement.  The most sentient thing he has ever shot is a soda can, his "weapon" of choice is a blog, and he has never called for anyone's death.

Let's get one thing straight here.  One of these things just doesn't belong.  So-called "militant" atheists are merely people who speak against theism.  We are not murderers, nor are we inciting murder or violence.  We are not calling for war or homicide or terrorism or genocide.  We are "extreme" only in the sense that we are doing something not usually done.  We are not anywhere near as bad, dangerous, or ludicrous as the genuinely militant members of the worlds' major religions.  Learn to separate the people fighting with guns and bombs from the people "fighting" with words and cartoons, and stop grouping the latter in with the former.

I am an unapologetic atheist.  An outspoken, frank, blunt, and critical atheist.  But I am not a radical, extreme, or oppressive atheist.  And most of all, I am not a militant atheist, and I do not appreciate the innacurate insinuations of violence and intolorance the use of that term brings.



    Militant atheist?

  2. Was Stalin militant? Yes. Was Stalin an atheist? Yes. Was Stalin militant because he was an atheist (or vice versa)? No.
    His use of violence and tyranny was not primarily intended to support atheism (and would still have been wrong if it was), it was intended to bolster his own power and the doctrine of Soviet communism. Soviet communism did demand atheism of its subjects, but this is because it was basically a political religion and didn't want competition from 'real' religion.

  3. That logic could be applied to anyone religiously militant as well. Religion = power. After all, religion can be a brilliant way to control people. And both sides can have followers that blindly listen to the leaders of the group and become militant as well.

  4. Stalin and his followers weren't violent because of their atheism, they were violent because of their extreme comunism. I'm not sure how many Nazis were violent because of their religion, but it seems most of the terroristic muslims are.

    Anyway, if you want to call Stalin a militant atheist then fine. That doesn't change the fact that the current atheist movement is nonviolent and should not be labelled as militant.