Quote from: WerekoalaDon't you see - they CAN'T be bigots or zealots because THEY'RE RIGHT.

  ...is exactly what I'm talking about.

  Passive-aggressive antipathy expressed either consciously or unconsciously through the selection of inflammatory terminology.

Quote from: Mr. Analytical...is exactly what I'm talking about.

  Passive-aggressive antipathy expressed either consciously or unconsciously through the selection of inflammatory terminology.

I'm not being passive-agressive against athiests, though - I'm that way about anyone who digs in and claims that they need to "correct" people "misconceptions" about anything. Just happens that the discussion is about athiests at the moment.

I have NO problem with mainstream athiests OR Christians or whatever. Its the holy-rollers and Dawkinites that I have a problem with.

Quote from: James McMurrayAtheists proselytize for the same reasons that theists do, ranging from a need to belong, a need to feel superior, a need to "help others see the truth," a belief that "he can't really be happy if he believes that," or any of a thousand other possible desires, practically none of which is a good enough excuse.

Succinct and 100% accurate.

I'm not correcting anyone.  In fact, I gave up discussing religion completely months ago because I'm not going to convince anyone and frankly I don't give a shit if you're going to live your life with a set of beliefs I don't agree with.

I'm not correcting anyone, I'm suggesting that people moderate the tone of their posts... and yet you felt compelled to throw the words "bigot" and "zealot" at me.

That sounds like A) you're full of shit when you say you're limiting yourself to people who want to correct others and B) you're contributing exactly to the phenomenon that I'm talking about.

So please... moderate your tone.

Quote from: ZalmoxisSuccinct and 100% accurate.

  A post with no content other than to pat someone on the back for making unfavourable and groundless generalisations about atheists using needlessly inflammatory language.

  Another case in point.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalSo please... moderate your tone.

This word moderate you keep using...it has no meaning here...

Regards,
David R

There are many reasons people choose to convince others of their viewpoints, even when it may be inappropriate or obviously fruitless to do so. Militant atheism is merely a specific instance of this general kind of behaviour, not a deviation from it.

That's why I'm inviting people to moderate the way they talk.  Freedom to be an arsehole doesn't mean that you should automatically be one.

"Darwinists" is a singularly poor choice for the group of people you mean, WK.

There are no good arguments for the existence of God. That any number of geniuses (Descartes and Aquinas being two of the greatest) have tried and failed to make the idea convincing is not a proof that no such arguments exist, but it's about as good evidence as you can need. Especially when a college freshman can basically understand the fallacies. So in this sense I agree with Mr. Analytical that it's an unfair comparison: for centuries now you've had one group of smart people saying "bring it" and another group of people basically coming up with nothing on their side. The best stuff is the sort of neutral-ground skeptical apologia professed by e.g. William James, lamely protesting that if there's no evidence either way you're equally free to believe what you like, ignoring that (a) most of us (J. Arcane interestingly excepted) have no remotely clear idea of what we are even talking about when we talk about any sort of religious thing and (b) you could believe all sorts of stupid damn things with no evidence possible for or against them (a teacup inside every black hole! you can't prove me wrong!) if you were so inclined.

Among people who practice intellectual hygeine, in the current historical situation, the atheist has God on his side. Maybe the best arguments aren't completely 100% until the end of time decisive, but they're way stronger on his side of the argument.

None of this prevents us from acknowledging the historical contributions or failings of members of various religions.

Hinterwelt, I don't really think of myself as 'spritual' either. When I think of spiritual-but-not-religious people I think of some pagans, unitarians, yogis, who are alive to the spiritual dimension of the world, celebrate it and accept it, but don't necessarily connect it to any unified theology or conception of a higher power.

I'm alive to the spiritual dimension of the world as well, but I'm deeply suspicious of it, and it gives me a sort of vertigo bordering on nausea, but I can't shake it completely no matter how much I drink. And can't really honestly say that I want to, even though it terrifies me. I definitely don't know what any of it means, but I'm profoundly not at home in the cosmos. Kafka's "Castle" seems a pretty good portrayal of my religious sensibility, so long as you take it as a serious portrayal of religious life and not just as a parody.

People should believe true things, and it's all of our role to help our brothers and sisters to do that. It was Cain who suggested otherwise.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineMilitant atheism is merely a specific instance of this general kind of behaviour, not a deviation from them.

  Speaking as not only an atheist but a secularist, I don't want to convince anyone that they're wrong.  If you look at the National Secular Society (for example) you'll find no talk of convincing people that they are wrong.  There are no great drives to convince anyone.

  The focus of secularism is rather to remove religious privilege and have religion treated, at the political level, as just another belief system with no added benefits, special treatment or political powers.  Even incredibly vocal political atheists in America (such as O'Hair) followed this model in trying not to ban religion or force atheism down anyone's throats but rather to remove institutional privilege towards religion.  

  To the extent that "militant atheism" is some great political movement to convert christians, I would argue that it simply does not exist.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalA post with no content other than to pat someone on the back for making unfavourable and groundless generalisations about atheists using needlessly inflammatory language.

  Another case in point.

did you read my post? Which of those are generalisations, given that I'm not attributing any of them to any speicific group, merely offering them as a small percentage of the myriad possible solutions?

Which are groundless? Are you saying no atheists ever want to be superior? No atheists want to provepeople wrong? No atheists think their opposites can't be happy because of their badwrong thought?

What language is inflammatory in my statement?

If you can answer all of those questions perhaps we'll talk. Until then, you're just another guy who hasn't read what he's talking about. Scroll up, look at the response I gave Grim when he made similar comments, and see if you can answer those as well.

No? didn't think so.

Mr. Analytical> You may be surprised to learn that as a particular person, your experience and attitudes are not typical of other persons in the world. I too am an atheist, and I have little to no interest in proselytising unless drawn into an argument, but we are neither aberrant nor typical in this regard. Many people who are atheists do choose to proselytise. They are the persons being dealt with in this thread.

Finally, someone who gets it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineMr. Analytical> You may be surprised to learn that as a particular person, your experience and attitudes are not typical of other persons in the world. I too am an atheist, and I have little to no interest in proselytising unless drawn into an argument, but we are neither aberrant nor typical in this regard. Many people who are atheists do choose to proselytise. They are the persons being dealt with in this thread.

Thank you. Thank you so very much.

Bill