The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

I tend to agree with his analysis. It's hard to go up against an organization as an individual though. Much easier as a labeled group, "atheists". Mostly, I don't like labeling myself as an atheist because I'm afraid of the wrath of an "old Testament" god.

BTW... What a horrible commercial before the video starts. And it's a minute long. Nice video though.

Wait...so atheism isn't a cranky subculture? I guess I gotta go back to being jewish...

I haven't yet met an Atheist who isn't an asshole. However it matches up with most people.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

I somewhat disagree with him on this particular item. I think that the word "atheist" is just a shortcut around some opening-round questions.

We can elect to avoid labeling ourselves as such, but the simple fact of the matter is that anyone who asks me the question "Do you believe in any god/gods/supreme being?", to which I answer "no", is going to label me as an atheist whether I self-apply it or not. Furthermore, refusing to self-apply the label just gives the detractors an excuse to give a dismissive, haughty little laugh to themselves and think "well, if they are so sure of themselves, why are they trying to weasel out of this rather simple term?".

I think "atheist" is often used as a loaded term along the lines of "gay", and related words whether used in an attempt to be derogatory or not. When some idiotic 13 year old (its OK, I was an idiot when I was 13 too) says "this food is gay", "this music is gay", etc. their use of the term in that way says much more about themselves than about whatever they are applying it to. When a somewhat more mature, yet tragically not yet mature enough adult calls a homosexual a "fag", they are usually applying the term in a way that is meant to shut down discussion. Fag, worthy of derision or not worthy of any consideration whatsoever, end of story.

"Atheist" is used by many religious people in much the same way. This person doesn't believe what I believe, their lack of vision is worthy of derision or at best they should just be ignored, end of story. However, in both instances it is very clear for any witnesses capable of rational evaluation that this person doesn't have anything of real substance to bring to the discussion. They are, in effect, parading their bias and ignorance for all to see.

So I tend to think that a much better approach to this labeling than avoidance is to embrace it. Yes, I am an atheist. Many people will make stereotypical judgments about me based on an association of my with that term. However, the only way to break those stereotypes is to freely accept the label, and provide counterexamples to them as living proof that they are false. That guy freely acknowledges that he is an atheist, yet maybe he is polite. Perhaps he has a family with well-mannered children. He may seem to be a moral/ethical individual. He can be a good friend. All of these things in spite of what the zealot in the pulpit would have many believe about the dreaded "atheists".

It took some time (and will take more) for many people to figure out that "teh gays" aren't all child molesters, they probably won't try to rape you if you happen to meet one on a dark street at night, etc. in spite of what the pope might insinuate or flat out say about them. People accepting that atheists aren't bogeymen will take some time too.

@MilkmanDan

I agree with everything you said. It's too bad there are atheists who do the same exact thing in reverse--make stereotypical judgments about people who are religious, such as they're all uneducated, domination-seeking, closed-minded, deluded bigots.

Also, he thinks "it's a trap deliberately set" for atheists? Set by who? What does he think, there's this religious cabal out there plotting ways to make atheists look bad? It just seems to be a bit paranoid to think of a bunch of imams, rabbis, priests, pastors, shamans, etc. getting together in some smoky room to figure out ways to screw atheists over. MilkmanDan's point that all labels can be used both descriptively and pejoratively seems way more plausible.

Finally, I think there is definitely a need to distinguish atheists (i.e. people who don't believe in a deity or deities) from people like Sam Harris and the other "new atheists" who are on a crusade to destroy religion. The term militant atheism is not an attempt to subvert Sam's argument; it's a practical necessity to differentiate his ideas and the people who share them from those atheists who aren't hostile to religion.

What does he think, there's this religious cabal out there plotting ways to make atheists look bad? It just seems to be a bit paranoid to think of a bunch of imams, rabbis, priests, pastors, shamans, etc. getting together in some smoky room to figure out ways to screw atheists over. - SDGundamX


Um, Yes, That's exactly their plan - have you not been to church lately?
The only plan that's in place is conversion. Every "non-believer" out there has a target for religion painted on their forehead. And for those that are dissident enough to actually stand up and be vocal that something is wrong about religion, they become targets for degradation.

If you have not "found God yet", then religion takes pity on you and offers you the "Kingdom of God!"
If you see through religion, you are looked down upon as a lost soul. You will not be invited to be with all your friends and family in the afterlife and will be tortured in Hell for eternity.

So, Yes, I'd say there is some "Plotting" going on...

>> ^MilkmanDan:

So I tend to think that a much better approach to this labeling than avoidance is to embrace it. Yes, I am an atheist.

I personally find it far more productive to discuss ideas rather than groups associations. While it is easier to identify oneself with atheism or conservatism or whatever, that also invites an enormous number of preconceptions into the discussion that only serve to hinder a real understanding.

Anytime someone asks me if I'm an atheist, I tell them I'm just not religious. Likewise, when people describe themselves in terms of any label then I ask them to define that label. When the discussion moves into issues and ideas then it's much easier to speak of evidence and support... when it instead involves labels then it becomes more about assumptions vs assumptions, and it just takes far too long to weed them out.

I upvoted for all the smart commentary. It seems like he is trying to make himself an implicit atheist after knowledge of religion has been introduced.

In my view an athiest is a person who doesn't believe in God, but will also tell anyone who does, "I'm sorry, but you're wrong.". An agnostic may not believe in god at all, but if someone else does they're willing to concede that anything's possible (there's other varients of agnostics, but to me this is what being agnostic means.. having a belief but accepting that they have no way of proving they're right over anyone else (no matter how crazy another belief seems)).

Tomorrow when I wake up there's not going to be a helicopter outside waiting to take me to work every day for the rest of my life.. but it -could- happen in an 1 in infinity minus one chance sort of way... So in my mind, an athiest will "push his or her belief" just as much so as a religous person will theirs. Therefor, I too somewhat disagree with some of what's said in this video... though, perhaps some athiests are open minded in the way I discribed but still consider themselves athiests. Not sure if that's the case.

I did like his mention of being good people, as I find that's one thing religous people hold over others. If you don't learn the word of God, how can you be moral? Though religion does tend to teach good practices, anyone has the capability of becoming a good person.

I personally believe we are limited to our physical senses in what we can detect in the universe, but is there a judging God out there that has this list of rules we have to follow with various places to attend after we're gone? No.. that just sounds way too man-made up for me to accept.

>> ^Drax:

In my view an athiest is a person who doesn't believe in God, but will also tell anyone who does, "I'm sorry, but you're wrong.". An agnostic may not believe in god at all, but if someone else does they're willing to concede that anything's possible (there's other varients of agnostics, but to me this is what being agnostic means.. having a belief but accepting that they have no way of proving they're right over anyone else (no matter how crazy another belief seems)).
Tomorrow when I wake up there's not going to be a helicopter outside waiting to take me to work every day for the rest of my life.. but it -could- happen in an 1 in infinity minus one chance sort of way... So in my mind, an athiest will "push his or her belief" just as much so as a religous person will theirs. Therefor, I too somewhat disagree with some of what's said in this video... though, perhaps some athiests are open minded in the way I discribed but still consider themselves athiests. Not sure if that's the case.
I did like his mention of being good people, as I find that's one thing religous people hold over others. If you don't learn the word of God, how can you be moral? Though religion does tend to teach good practices, anyone has the capability of becoming a good person.
I personally believe we are limited to our physical senses in what we can detect in the universe, but is there a judging God out there that has this list of rules we have to follow with various places to attend after we're gone? No.. that just sounds way too man-made up for me to accept.


Mostly this part "So in my mind, an athiest will "push his or her belief" just as much so as a religous person will theirs."

In holding this belief you will always have confirmation bias against the types of people who don't fit your model and you will likely ignore or not be aware of the opposite when that opposite is standing in front of you.

And if you continue to hold that model, even in the face of evidence, then it is you sir, who are like the religious who maintain their doctrine in the face of contradictory facts.

Just keep in mind that someone can be both an atheist and an agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive. Considering yourself an atheist doesn't require you to make the claim that there are no gods, it doesn't require any claims at all.

I always adjust "my model" through experience.. my theological experiences with others is limited pretty much to youtube videos posted here and a few athiests who do not believe there's other possibilities (which I respect.. in my opinion that has the most evidence). Which is why I put my view out there.. if I come across as stringent about my view then that's pretty much the opposite of what I was trying to present.

Finally, I think there is definitely a need to distinguish atheists (i.e. people who don't believe in a deity or deities) from people like Sam Harris and the other "new atheists" who are on a crusade to destroy religion. The term militant atheism is not an attempt to subvert Sam's argument; it's a practical necessity to differentiate his ideas and the people who share them from those atheists who aren't hostile to religion.



What a blatant strawman of a loaded argument. Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. You might want to demonstrate that they are on a "crusade" to "destroy" religion before assuming it, prima facie. If you had read anything from Harris, Dennett, Stenger, Grayling, Dawkins, Hitchens, and so on, you would know this, that they do not want to "destroy" religion. You're being totally unfair and/or unintentionally using imprecise, inflammatory language or playing semantic games, which does a great disservice to your original point.

No, "militant" is not a fit descriptor. The common usage of Militancy implies the willingness to do violence to achieve one's ends, which you already know is patently false of . I ask you to stop spreading misinformation and false equivalences, please. You're helping to water down the actual meaning of the word "militancy" by including an essentially peaceful and non-violent movement under that umbrella. There are plenty of other words which fit the bill in a far more practical and truthful, less ideologically loaded way. Cut it out.

I listened as a friend of mine, who is a Pastor at a local church, tell about how he does not believe in religion, at all, in any shape, or form. He does believe in His god though. He described it as a personal relationship between him and God.

We have to remember that a person that believes in God has a believe you can't take away or sway. They can evolve their own opinions but it's "Their" belief - regardless of what it is.

Most of the negativity that comes between atheism and faith is the "Religion" that operates like an outer shell and tries to overpower and control the personal beliefs of the individual.

A person's belief system doesn't affect me or the person beside them in church. A person will believe what they want. It's the religion that starts to dictate the rules of engagement and control. Not everyone believes the exact same thing, which is why the Catholic church has spun off into so many variations. From there, people just jump from church to church until they find the one that closest resembles their beliefs.

Those who just don't believe, and there are far more than they realize or want us to believe (I like to believe it's 50/50), are just the ones at the far end of the spectrum, the farthest from the Fundamentalist establishments.

Sam Harris needs to buy some ties.

Too often, I've found that atheists have this smug superior attitude towards people who are religious and im kinda fed up with it. It's no different from the smug superior people who think they're going to heaven and I'm not. I've known too many people who are religious who are decent good people who aren't fundie whackos who take a hard religious line. The vast majority of religious people are decent people just trying to make a living and do NOT suspend logic when confronted with a reasonable argument and/or proof

Religion and belief in a God is not inherently bad or stupid. Like most things, it's just a tool and it depends on who is using it and how they are using it. If you use religion to bring people together and help your community, then religion is a good thing. If you use it to manipulate, control, and influence policy, then it is a bad thing. The problem is not religion, it's the corrupt people in power BEHIND religion that is the problem.

If atheists aren't careful, they will find that Atheism will turn into its own religion with it's own dogma that MUST be adhered to. If it hasn't already

It's for these reasons, I'm an agnostic, NOT an atheist.

@AnimalsForCrackers

All of the authors are actively hostile to religion. They have talked at great length in public and in their books about how much better the world would be if it were gone, and about how grateful they would be if they could be a part of making that happen. Harris in this very video refers to religion as a "bad idea" and encourages atheists to "destroy" bad ideas wherever they are found.

They are waging a war on religion. If you'll follow the link and read the definition, you'll see that not all wars involve violence or bloodshed. Militant is an apt term to describe them. You don't have to be violent or embrace violence to be militant. And this term refers to both their open hostility and also their organization of both people and activities in an attempt to bring about the end of religion. The hostility and organization is, in fact, what separates them from other atheists who don't feel the need to fight religion and co-exist quite fine with it.

Your objection seems to be that "militant" atheist can be used pejoratively. Indeed it can. As can "Gnu Atheist" or whatever other label you might choose, which was MilkmanDan's point. That's inevitable. But I would like to hear your suggestions on a label for the group. It should be a label that 1) clearly differentiates them from those who don't share their viewpoints and goals and 2) be descriptively accurate. The second condition is the one that prevents me from finding "Gnu" or "New" atheists as a suitable label.

EDIT:
Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
Richard Dawkins: The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity. (Emphasis added)
Christopher Hitchens: Why we should fight religion

I await your apology. I take that back. Anyone (including me) who's been on VS long enough has had the experience of only half-reading or misunderstanding someone's post, flying off the handle, and typing something they later regret.

I was able to find the continuation of his speech, almost exactly where that left off. Here it is.

SD, congrats, I thought it'd be a given that words can have more than one meaning. I specifically said common usage for a reason, as in, the meaning the average person would be most likely to derive from the word. Keep playing semantic games to push this retarded narrative of yours. I just figured you could be more precise when describing other people's intent instead of lazily tossing around generalized blanket terms which end up meaning different things for different people. By your own definition, any one person who is not some apathetic nihilist, who has any interest in shaping the future of the world in the human marketplace of ideas (I hate using that phrase but it is apt) is basically a "militant".

MLK, to use your flawed example in a previous argument, was one militant motherfucker for daring to change the status quo and it's unsurprising that there were people like you, not racists, just tone trolls, saying the exact same thing.

Here's a good word, secularist. Was that so hard? Put "atheist" in front of that and at least you have something accurate. Expressing a personal desire to see religion gone and supposedly attempting to destroy it on those grounds are two different things. The New Atheists are of the former; they think it has no place in governance or science. New Atheism was a label foisted upon them by the media that ended up sticking, it was never something they came up with, there's nothing new about their form of atheism as they have all but given up exasperatedly trying to say so and disown the label. They think people should be free to practice religion in private and certainly want people to be educated about them in schools, via comparative religion. The fact that I even have to mention this just shows how uneducated you are on their positions. Out of context quote-mining is worthless when they have expanded on what they actually mean by those quotes in exhaustive detail to AVOID the very confusion you are trying your very hardest to sow. They are actively trying to minimize its status through education, not outright destroy it.

It's pretty clear to me what your intent is. You're trying to smear any atheist who dares not keep it to him/her self. You're too worried about atheists merely speaking out, yet I hear nothing from you about the vastly disproportionate amount of influence and entanglement religion (a bunch of imaginary ideas with no basis in reality used to control, kill, and enslave people for thousands of years) has in society and politics right now, fucking up my country in the process. Where's your indignation when it comes to that? Oh, but BOOHOO, we're sooooo militant. Give me a fucking break.

I'm not replying here to sway anyone through pleasant-sounding yet essentially hollow rhetoric, just to correct your nonsense.

@AnimalsForCrackers, @SDGundamX.

AForC, I think you just made SD's point for him. Your post was thick with condescension. I'm a scientist, and I happen to not hold any particular religious affiliations. However, I often attempt to hold dialogue with religious folks, and try to understand their world view. I agree, it is important that those with secular belief systems organize so that we are taken seriously by our elected representatives. However, I don't feel it is necessary to downright insult the beliefs of another, nor do I feel that is a productive means to the ends we both desire. It is the tendency of the authors on your list to do so, and it is for that reason that I, and many like me, tend to avoid their rhetoric. Likewise, I try to avoid the "War on Christmas" type rhetoric. Rhetoric from both sides is widening the divisions between us, and tending to entrench people more in their beliefs. That tends to work against the aim of a more secular, enlightened, or free-thinking society. I think Dawkins could do far more good for the world by keeping his subject matter to biology. Further, it is important to point out that people like Sam Harris are doing what they're doing for the same reasons that tele-evangalists do... monetizing their particular belief system.

Nail on the head. Hitchens, Harris, Maher, et al are the cranky sub-culture of atheism. I've discussed a myriad of issues with people of many different perspectives - religous or otherwise - and it cannot be argued that there are people in all camps who are the loud, noisy, pushy, somewhat 'out there' advocates for whatever cause or other.

I see a lot of folks trying to say that is OK. Clearly that is a defensive reaction spurred primarily by personal bias. If the shoe was on the other foot, and some "Fundie" preacher was saying the same stuff about Theism, then I very much doubt that guys like Crackers would be so quick to be apologists for it.

Bmacs27 said it well. When having a discussion, it is important to try and be respectful even if you disagree. It's tough to do that when one of the participants is openly hostile, beligerent, and unwilling to listen to other points of view AKA Harris. People who are religious commit this error all the time, and are rightfully called to the carpet on it. If a person really is religious, how can it possibly be said that God would approve of them entering a discussion with that sort of mindset and outlook? Likewise - how can you take an atheist seriously when he carps about the 'bad behavior' of people of faith, and yet behaves like an uncultured boor every time he opens his mouth?

Physicians - heal thyselves.

Too often, I've found that atheists have this smug superior attitude towards people who are religious and im kinda fed up with it. It's no different from the smug superior people who think they're going to heaven and I'm not. I've known too many people who are religious who are decent good people who aren't fundie whackos who take a hard religious line. The vast majority of religious people are decent people just trying to make a living and do NOT suspend logic when confronted with a reasonable argument and/or proof.

Amen. That's where the 'cranky atheist subculture' really just goes off the tracks. Like most folks with a biased axe to grind, they cherry-pick isolated, unrepresentative examples out of large populations and portray them as the norm. It is the same bull that MSNBC and FOX infotainers routinely pollute discourse with.

Let's get some terms straight:

Atheist - Anybody who does not believe in a specific religion. This includes those who call themselves agnostic, secular, non-religious, or skeptic. These groups use other words because they fear the negative stereotype associated with the word atheist. It just means that you don't believe. That's all. Maybe you even think that it's possible, but so unlikely that you will live your life without it. That's still atheism.

Strong atheism - Anyone who firmly believes that there is no supreme being. Yes, this is a type of faith, since there is no proof one way or the other. But these people are actually rare. Most atheists are simply saying that the God of Abraham (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), Hinduism, Shintoism, and anything else that requires magical thinking are nothing more that stories made up by human beings.

Anti-theist - Anyone who advocates for the end of religion and magical thinking. Of course there are many atheists who fall into this category, but there are also many who don't. You may know many atheists but are simply unaware of it, because they never talk about religion. It's just not a part of their lives.

I agree that anti-theists can be very annoying because anybody who is outspoken can be very annoying. But their cause is vital as long as there are religious nuts trying to inject religion into so many aspects of our secular government. If the evangelicals would go away, the loud anti-theists would disappear overnight.

And in regards to atheist arrogance... When you are ten years old and you know that Santa Clause doesn't exist, it's very hard not to feel superior to your seven year old sibling who still believes, and writes him a letter, and tells the guy in the mall what he wants, and stays up late on Christmas Eve trying to catch a glimpse. It's obvious to you that the presents come from Mom and Dad, not some fat guy in a red suit that magically visits every home in one night. Magic doesn't exist. The story doesn't fit with what you know of the real world.

It's the same way with atheists. Even though I bite my tongue around friends who are religious, it's hard not to look down on them and think of them as immature. Wishing doesn't make something true, praying doesn't make things happen, and a beautiful sunset or rainbow is not a miracle. And every time I hear somebody praising God for something good in their life, I can't help but think about all the real things they should actually be thanking, like their family and friends, their job, or even their own hard work. Some atheists are better than others in hiding this feeling of superiority, but it will always be there. And with good reason.

It is incumbent on the educated to be tolerant of the uneducated.

Only if they show some sign they are trying to learn. Otherwise they deserve to be mocked.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Only if they show some sign they are trying to learn. Otherwise they deserve to be mocked.


@MaxWilder But when has mocking ever been a successful tool for social change? Take Sarah Palin as just one example. She's mocked publicly on pretty much a daily basis yet you don't see her changing her opinions, do you? What you do see is people rallying to defend her from the "lib-tard smear campaign." And from there it just degenerates into name-calling and and rhetoric and there's no real dialogue about any issue. I don't think mocking help matters at all and in most cases just makes it worse.

@AnimalsForCrackers

I'd ask kindly that you respond what I write and not whatever "hidden meaning" you think my message has--there is none. I write as clearly as possible but if there is some ambiguity about what I wrote, how about you just ask me my opinion rather than make off-the-wall accusations and assumptions? Also, I'll ask once again (you'll remember from the last thread we had a discussion in), could you put an @ in front of my name when you respond to my posts so I get an email that tells me you're commenting about me and I can reply (thanks for the heads-up @bmacs27)?

MLK never insulted or condescended towards those he opposed. He advocated dialogue to promote change, not name-calling. He inspired people to find their commonalities, not focus on their differences. He did organize people to change the status quo and he did it without the need to be "militaristic" in any sense of the word.

I agree with you that secularists would be a great replacement name for atheists who believe the things you talked about (people should be free to practice religion, but it shouldn't invade politics or religion). But that's not what Harris and the rest have been talking about recently--as I demonstrated by doing you the courtesy a less-than-5-minute Google search and finding those three quotes/talks and pointing out what Harris said in this video clip.

Given the ease with which I found those it should be no problem for you to do me the same courtesy and send me links showing the three gentlemen expressing the views you claim to be their true position (there is in fact one video here on the Sift from Dawkins giving an interview in the UK--sorry, can't seem to find it in the search at the moment--from about 4 years ago where he puts out such a stance, but more recent comments seem to indicate that he's moved away from tolerance and more towards open hostility).

On a side note, what exactly is "religion" doing to "your country" (I'm guessing the US)? Are the Jains destroying the separation of church and state? How about those Quakers, can you imagine the damage their doing? And let's not even get started talking about the Buddhists. You accused me of not using words accurately, but I get the sense you're not using the word "religion" accurately. I think (feel free to clarify) that when you say religion what you really mean is fundamentalist Christians who believe the US in a "Christian nation" are ruining the USA. And that's fine, if you believe that, but let's not confuse a very vocal minority of religious believers with "religion."

Why don't I rail against religion? Because my position is that religion is not the problem (as I think I've told you in other threads). I've said repeatedly that religion is a tool that can be used for good or for evil and that the challenge for religions in the 21st century is going to be to try to change themselves so that they maximize the good and minimize the potential for evil. Are bad things done in the name of religion? Yeah, all the time. That doesn't de facto make religion bad, though. But I will absolutely criticize specific actions which I think are wrong, like I did on this other vid--I'm an equal opportunity critic.

You perceive religion as a threat, apparently. I don't. That's the difference between us. I'm happy to hear your views on why you think it is a threat. I'd be even happier if you listened to mine on why I don't think it is without getting either hostile or emotional.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by VoodooV.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.