Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sonny Mobley on October 30, 2009 at 2:10pm

To me a militant atheist is someone who is literally going to try and force someone to think a certain way. If calling atheist's to stand up for themselves and rationality makes you a militant then so am I.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on October 29, 2009 at 10:24pm

I agree. Think the man is brilliant. I think he cuts deep sometimes though. However if they didn't believe in such hypocritical nonsense it probably wouldn't hurt so much!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on October 30, 2009 at 5:09am

I've never heard of this guy....look out google!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on October 30, 2009 at 7:09am

Pat Condell of course

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Timo Ostrander on October 30, 2009 at 8:52am

OMG! He's great! Check him out! I'm subscribed to him on YouTube.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Timo Ostrander on October 30, 2009 at 8:55am

I think Dawkins is not militant, nor is he "in your face". I hardly see him knocking on doors proclaiming the "good news" of atheism. He does stand up for what he believes in and, in my opinion, does it with remarkable poise, patience and politeness. In fact, I wish I could maintain my composure as well as he does. I tend to get too emotional when I debate and discuss these issues.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David S on October 30, 2009 at 5:33pm

It depends on your objective, temperament and character. If your inclined toward spleen venting and think that anyone who might not agree with you is stupid, and/or that your're some kind of revolutionary at the forefront of some grand social movement, you'll go for the "in your face" approach.(or if you're making big bucks promoting "in your face")

For my part, I get my jollies, occasionally tossing out some smartass remark that I know is going to offend the person(s) I'm talking to. Sometimes it's fun. But I don't make it standard operating procedure because it isn't productive and, depending on circumstances, can cause failure of necessary relations required to deal with practical matters. "In your face" isn't about atheism anyway. It's actually about psycho/social/political crap. Atheism provides no justification for most of the stuff "in your facers" have to say. There is no political doctrine, social theory or semi-pathological mental condition that rationally follows from atheism. Arguments loaded with historical and scientific technicalities and trivialities are diversions. A cursory examinations of history shows that atheists have been capable of atrocity and mass murder every bit as much as christians. Cherry picking "facts" only promotes some political/social agenda that neither supports atheism nor is supported by atheism.

To some extent this is to be expected. The proportion of atheists who don't really know why they're atheists is at least a great as the proportion of christian who don't know why they're christians. Atheism is often just as much a matter of reaction to phsyco/social factors as it is a matter of reason. That's OK. You go with what you know; you do the best you can with what you got to work with. But recognize that that's what your doing. To paraphrase a remark Socrates once made, "god isn't a reason for anything but is an excuse for everything". Atheism can work the same way if one doesn't take care with it. It can be used as an excuse for everything and a reason for nothing. And, depending on the individual, can be just as disgustingly fanatic as christianity.

If, by temperament, character, circumstances, etc., you just can't resist being in people's faces, then go for it. But expecting other atheists to jump onto your bandwagon is likely to be just as frustrating and aggravating as being "in your face" with christians.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marshall on October 30, 2009 at 6:33pm

I personally love Dawkins and encourage him to continue to fight the good fight. Having said that, I don't agreee with him on everything and his tactics are different than my own. Dawkins is just one of many; he has his style I have mine, you have yours and your friend has his. Just the way I like it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Denise Royer on October 30, 2009 at 8:44pm

Getting the word out and opening up discussion is important and Dawkins does that. My first exposure to atheism was via Dawkins -he really ticked off my former church. There is a time to be polite and there is a time to stomp on toes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Goodie Faithless on November 23, 2009 at 12:33am

A lot of Christian and Katholic types seem to think that anyone who claims to be an Atheist is 'in their face' because they are trained to attack opposition. I think the root of the matter is that they don't want to stop believing in stuff that makes them happy. And then there are the Atheists who enjoy getting in people's faces for kicks. (My brother.) So, 'polite' Atheists are trained to tread lightly by people who are terrified of Atheists by Atheists like my brother. I would like to read something by Dawkins. My mom was a James Randi nut. I heard that Dan Radclidffe (Harry Potter) is an Atheist and into Dawkins, so this guy sounds like the new modern voice of an Atheist generation. Hmmm, an atheist author who has all kinds of people up in arms even though he uses politeness at the core of his philosophy. I like that. I'm gonna go look him up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marshall on November 23, 2009 at 2:56am

Not sure I care about how Dawkins is perceived by theists, who are likely to view anyone critical of their beliefs as being too aggressive. I do know that I've enjoyed his books and I've met a number of current non-believers who credit Dawkins and Hitchens as being instrumental in their conversion and appreciation of science. I would object to Dawkins if he engaged in deliberate acts of deception to push his agenda; however to my knowledge this has not been the case. He may not be for everyone, however there are a large number of us who enjoy his works.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page