FFRF atheists attack small town over iconic image

[Not Safe For Work]

Meh.

City puts banned symbol in seal, City is asked to remove the seal by a pressure group.

I'll care when they start to get Soviet style, which won't happen.

Indeed. People are acting like the demand was to take the cross off the building, not the seal.

[Norstal]

Meh.

City puts banned symbol in seal, City is asked to remove the seal by a pressure group.

I'll care when they start to get Soviet style, which won't happen.

Indeed. People are acting like the demand was to take the cross off the building, not the seal.

I wonder how much it takes just to photoshop that. Really, everyone makes such a big deal about it.

[The Realm of God]

Meh.

City puts banned symbol in seal, City is asked to remove the seal by a pressure group.

I'll care when they start to get Soviet style, which won't happen.

Indeed. People are acting like the demand was to take the cross off the building, not the seal.

Indeed, the poll is biased too. It assumes that the atheist group is acting out of anti-theist glee, not truth. Or that Christians are butthurt over the ruleing, also not true.

[Shofercia]

They should also sue over the religious names of towns.

Los Angeles, Spanish for the angels.
Santa Monica, Spanish of Ste Monica
Santa Fe, Ste Fe
San Diego, St Diego
San Francisco, St Francisco
San Bernadino, St Bernadino
In other words, the state of California will have to rename a lot of their cities, like the state capital of Sacramento, which is Spanish for Blessed Sacrament.

Texas will have to rename Corpus Christi, Latin for body of Christ. Same with their capital city of San Antonio, St Antonio.

The State of Louisiana can no longer name their political subdivisions "Parishes". That sounds like a religious group. They should all be named "Counties", like the rest of the country.

Any town that has the "Chapel" on its name, like Chapel Hill, NC USA.

Any town or area that has the name "New Hope", which is from New Hope Chapel from many years ago.

Any government installation or facility that has any type of religious carvings, such as the US Supreme Court Bldg, and destroy all facilities used as places of worship in military installations.

Any government agency that has a religious leader/figure on its payroll, such as the Congressional Chapalin, and all the chaplains in the military services.

Redo the oath of office for all elected officials, you know, the part that goes "so help me God"

Redo the oath during court proceedings

Sue to redo our national currency, since all of it has "God" on them.

And with that, I will now turn the sarcasmotron off.

Some of that stuff is actually what militant atheists are pushing for, including FFRF. I know, it's extremely bizarre.

Oh for the love of-

Stuff like this is why I get cross-eyed looks when I tell people I'm an atheist.

*gives Atalem a cross eyed look*

Oh ok, you're not with FFRF, carry on

So if you don't care, why bother responding?

So that I can continue to point out the fact that your opinion disagrees with reality.

I'm disagreeing with a court ruling, and quite frankly, that's a valid opinion to have. I'm willing to bet that you weren't going around telling people that their opinion disagrees with reality when they opposed the Padilla Case. Geez, disagree with an opinion that militant atheists adore, and suddenly the flames come out.

It all depends on motivation behind the imagery. If it was simply to showcase something that is big in their town, which it seems to be, then it it not an endorsement of a single religion and is thus not violating the first admendment.

If it was however an intent to promote religion then of course it should be removed, I think it should be taken up in court.

And how do you prove motivation?

All that happens in your scenario is that EVERYONE always claims that their particular use of religious imagery is not intended to promote religion.

How do you prove intent? Cause almost everyone argues that they're innocent. Golly gee, maybe we shouldn't have anymore murder trials. /sarcasm

[The Realm of God]

They should also sue over the religious names of towns.

Los Angeles, Spanish for the angels.
Santa Monica, Spanish of Ste Monica
Santa Fe, Ste Fe
San Diego, St Diego
San Francisco, St Francisco
San Bernadino, St Bernadino
In other words, the state of California will have to rename a lot of their cities, like the state capital of Sacramento, which is Spanish for Blessed Sacrament.

Texas will have to rename Corpus Christi, Latin for body of Christ. Same with their capital city of San Antonio, St Antonio.

The State of Louisiana can no longer name their political subdivisions "Parishes". That sounds like a religious group. They should all be named "Counties", like the rest of the country.

Any town that has the "Chapel" on its name, like Chapel Hill, NC USA.

Any town or area that has the name "New Hope", which is from New Hope Chapel from many years ago.

Any government installation or facility that has any type of religious carvings, such as the US Supreme Court Bldg, and destroy all facilities used as places of worship in military installations.

Any government agency that has a religious leader/figure on its payroll, such as the Congressional Chapalin, and all the chaplains in the military services.

Redo the oath of office for all elected officials, you know, the part that goes "so help me God"

Redo the oath during court proceedings

Sue to redo our national currency, since all of it has "God" on them.

And with that, I will now turn the sarcasmotron off.

Some of that stuff is actually what militant atheists are pushing for, including FFRF. I know, it's extremely bizarre.

Oh for the love of-

Stuff like this is why I get cross-eyed looks when I tell people I'm an atheist.

*gives Atalem a cross eyed look*

Oh ok, you're not with FFRF, carry on

So that I can continue to point out the fact that your opinion disagrees with reality.

I'm disagreeing with a court ruling, and quite frankly, that's a valid opinion to have. I'm willing to bet that you weren't going around telling people that their opinion disagrees with reality when they opposed the Padilla Case. Geez, disagree with an opinion that militant atheists adore, and suddenly the flames come out.

And how do you prove motivation?

All that happens in your scenario is that EVERYONE always claims that their particular use of religious imagery is not intended to promote religion.

How do you prove intent? Cause almost everyone argues that they're innocent. Golly gee, maybe we shouldn't have anymore murder trials. /sarcasm

They aren't militant atheists.

See my post here to see what a 'Militant Atheist' is.

The Soviet League of Militant Atheists would first visit a religious person with a tutor on Atheism (you know russel teapot etc) if he refused he would possibly lose his job. If he still kept his religion he would.

A) Be executed.
B)Be deported to a GULAG or to an under populated settlement.
C)If the NKVD had mercy on him, he would be sent to a mental hospital.
D)he could also 'dissppear'

It's one of the cruelist systems ever devised.

[Shofercia]

They aren't militant atheists.

See my post here to see what a 'Militant Atheist' is.

The Soviet League of Militant Atheists would first visit a religious person with a tutor on Atheism (you know russel teapot etc) if he refused he would possibly lose his job. If he still kept his religion he would.

A) Be executed.
B)Be deported to a GULAG or to an under populated settlement.
C)If the NKVD had mercy on him, he would be sent to a mental hospital.
D)he could also 'dissppear'

It's one of the cruelist systems ever devised.

No, those are Stalinist Militant Atheists. Stalinism generally radicalized everything, and it's a common misnomer to confuse Stalinist activities with most other Soviet activities, so let's not do that, shall we?

The league of militant atheists "voluntarily" disbanded after facing pressure from the Red Army, and good riddance to them. However, we're talking about the current militant atheists, not their radicalized, disbanded, Stalinist counterparts.

[The Realm of God]

They aren't militant atheists.

See my post here to see what a 'Militant Atheist' is.

No, those are Stalinist Militant Atheists. Stalinism generally radicalized everything, and it's a common misnomer to confuse Stalinist activities with most other Soviet activities, so let's not do that, shall we?

The league of militant atheists "voluntarily" disbanded after facing pressure from the Red Army, and good riddance to them. However, we're talking about the current militant atheists, not their radicalized, disbanded, Stalinist counterparts.

They reformed under a differnt name under Krushchev and the program of mental hospitalisation of the religious happened right up intill the 1980's so don't give me that bullcrap.

I refuse to allow you to associate current convinced atheists with those psychos.

The LGM succesor was called the All-Union Society for the Dissemination of Political and Scientific Knowledge.

[Shofercia]

No, those are Stalinist Militant Atheists. Stalinism generally radicalized everything, and it's a common misnomer to confuse Stalinist activities with most other Soviet activities, so let's not do that, shall we?

The league of militant atheists "voluntarily" disbanded after facing pressure from the Red Army, and good riddance to them. However, we're talking about the current militant atheists, not their radicalized, disbanded, Stalinist counterparts.

They reformed under a differnt name under Krushchev and the program of mental hospitalisation of the religious happened right up intill the 1980's so don't give me that bullcrap.

I refuse to allow you to associate current convinced atheists with those psychos.

The LGM succesor was called the All-Union Society for the Dissemination of Political and Scientific Knowledge.

I'm not associating them with those psychos. I'm equating militant atheists with fundies, in terms of religiously following through on shaping society according to their opinions, and Rush Limbaugh doesn't exactly run a Gulag, last time I checked. Please actually read my posts, before commenting on them.

By militant atheists, you and I mean totally different things, and your definition went defunct after Stalin, and Stalin really doesn't have a monopoly on terms, with the sole exception of the term Stalinism, for obvious reasons. As for Khrushchev, and company, please, I was baptized in the USSR, so don't tell me about demon stories, when I actually lived there. And I'm not the one who is associating them with Stalinist crazies - you are. So take your own advise and stop it.

[The Realm of God]

Perhaps you should use the correct term then 'convinced atheist'.

Oh by the way Khrushchev only targeted those with degrees. So unless you had a universitiy degree they wouldn't have targeted you. The reason "Intellictuals could not possibly be religious after going through the school system."

Oh and just because you lived there didn't mean it did not happen.

[Ifreann]

They should also sue over the religious names of towns.

Los Angeles, Spanish for the angels.
Santa Monica, Spanish of Ste Monica
Santa Fe, Ste Fe
San Diego, St Diego
San Francisco, St Francisco
San Bernadino, St Bernadino
In other words, the state of California will have to rename a lot of their cities, like the state capital of Sacramento, which is Spanish for Blessed Sacrament.

Texas will have to rename Corpus Christi, Latin for body of Christ. Same with their capital city of San Antonio, St Antonio.

The State of Louisiana can no longer name their political subdivisions "Parishes". That sounds like a religious group. They should all be named "Counties", like the rest of the country.

Any town that has the "Chapel" on its name, like Chapel Hill, NC USA.

Any town or area that has the name "New Hope", which is from New Hope Chapel from many years ago.

Any government installation or facility that has any type of religious carvings, such as the US Supreme Court Bldg, and destroy all facilities used as places of worship in military installations.

Any government agency that has a religious leader/figure on its payroll, such as the Congressional Chapalin, and all the chaplains in the military services.

Redo the oath of office for all elected officials, you know, the part that goes "so help me God"

Redo the oath during court proceedings

Sue to redo our national currency, since all of it has "God" on them.

And with that, I will now turn the sarcasmotron off.

Some of that stuff is actually what militant atheists are pushing for, including FFRF. I know, it's extremely bizarre.

It's nothing to do with militancy or atheism. People who are in favour of a secular government would be in favour of roughly the bottom third of those things.

Whatever various cities, towns, and Louisiana political divisions were named for, their religious significance is long gone.

I'm given to understand that the Supreme Court carvings everyone gets to worked up about in fact have nothing to do with religion, but are depictions of historical and mythological law-givers. Regardless, religious imagery should not be on government buildings, so any such instances should be removed to a museum if historically significant, or scrapped if not.

Chaplains are fine, as long as they provide chaplaincy services without regard for which, if any, those who come to them hold. Generic places of worship on military bases or the like are also acceptable, if held to the same standard of being for all who wish to use them.

Oaths of office and before courts should not involve any god or gods, nor should the Pledge of Allegiance. People can make promises to their deities on their own time.

And the fact that "In God We Trust" hasn't been struck down as your official motto and removed from all future currency is the absolute height of hypocrisy.

[Caninope]

Oaths of office and before courts should not involve any god or gods, nor should the Pledge of Allegiance. People can make promises to their deities on their own time.

As it so happens, there's no actual oath which requires one to say "So help me God."

It's just done by convention.

[Not Safe For Work]

They should also sue over the religious names of towns.

Los Angeles, Spanish for the angels.
Santa Monica, Spanish of Ste Monica
Santa Fe, Ste Fe
San Diego, St Diego
San Francisco, St Francisco
San Bernadino, St Bernadino
In other words, the state of California will have to rename a lot of their cities, like the state capital of Sacramento, which is Spanish for Blessed Sacrament.

Texas will have to rename Corpus Christi, Latin for body of Christ. Same with their capital city of San Antonio, St Antonio.

The State of Louisiana can no longer name their political subdivisions "Parishes". That sounds like a religious group. They should all be named "Counties", like the rest of the country.

Any town that has the "Chapel" on its name, like Chapel Hill, NC USA.

Any town or area that has the name "New Hope", which is from New Hope Chapel from many years ago.

Any government installation or facility that has any type of religious carvings, such as the US Supreme Court Bldg, and destroy all facilities used as places of worship in military installations.

Any government agency that has a religious leader/figure on its payroll, such as the Congressional Chapalin, and all the chaplains in the military services.

Redo the oath of office for all elected officials, you know, the part that goes "so help me God"

Redo the oath during court proceedings

Sue to redo our national currency, since all of it has "God" on them.

And with that, I will now turn the sarcasmotron off.

Some of that stuff is actually what militant atheists are pushing for, including FFRF. I know, it's extremely bizarre.

Oh for the love of-

Stuff like this is why I get cross-eyed looks when I tell people I'm an atheist.

*gives Atalem a cross eyed look*

Oh ok, you're not with FFRF, carry on

So that I can continue to point out the fact that your opinion disagrees with reality.

I'm disagreeing with a court ruling, and quite frankly, that's a valid opinion to have. I'm willing to bet that you weren't going around telling people that their opinion disagrees with reality when they opposed the Padilla Case. Geez, disagree with an opinion that militant atheists adore, and suddenly the flames come out.

And how do you prove motivation?

All that happens in your scenario is that EVERYONE always claims that their particular use of religious imagery is not intended to promote religion.

How do you prove intent? Cause almost everyone argues that they're innocent. Golly gee, maybe we shouldn't have anymore murder trials. /sarcasm

Right. Exactly. Well, not exactly - because motivation doesn't really make for a good 'murder' argument. I don't know. Maybe. Manslaughter I guess. Um.

[Not Safe For Work]

By militant atheists, you and I mean totally different things...

Yes. You don't mean 'militant'.

[Ifreann]

Oaths of office and before courts should not involve any god or gods, nor should the Pledge of Allegiance. People can make promises to their deities on their own time.

As it so happens, there's no actual oath which requires one to say "So help me God."

It's just done by convention.

Makin' progress already.

[Dyakovo]

Redo the oath of office for all elected officials, you know, the part that goes "so help me God"

Redo the oath during court proceedings

Sue to redo our national currency, since all of it has "God" on them.

Some of that stuff is actually what militant atheists are pushing for, including FFRF. I know, it's extremely bizarre.

Cut it down to the ones that actually match what you said...
You're right, It's bizarre... What are they thinking, expecting the government to abide by the constitution?

So that I can continue to point out the fact that your opinion disagrees with reality.

I'm disagreeing with a court ruling, and quite frankly, that's a valid opinion to have. I'm willing to bet that you weren't going around telling people that their opinion disagrees with reality when they opposed the Padilla Case. Geez, disagree with an opinion that militant atheists adore, and suddenly the flames come out.

Sill having trouble with reality I see...

[Shofercia]

Perhaps you should use the correct term then 'convinced atheist'.

Oh by the way Khrushchev only targeted those with degrees. So unless you had a universitiy degree they wouldn't have targeted you. The reason "Intellictuals could not possibly be religious after going through the school system."

Oh and just because you lived there didn't mean it did not happen.

Perhaps I should use the term I use, and not stop using it just because Stalin misused it before. And my parents both had university degrees, and weren't targeted. I realize that it might have happened, but it was nowhere near the Stalinist level of oppression after WWII, and especially after Stalin's death. And even you admitted that it went by another name, so the term, militant atheist, as you presented it, was dead when Stalin was.

I'm talking about militant atheism in the modern context, as defined by Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, etc, by those who want to launch a Crusade against Religion. By Crusade, (perhaps I should also clarify this, they're referring to a proverbial Crusade,) not to hacking Christians on the streets with swords and maces.

Some of that stuff is actually what militant atheists are pushing for, including FFRF. I know, it's extremely bizarre.

It's nothing to do with militancy or atheism. People who are in favour of a secular government would be in favour of roughly the bottom third of those things.

Whatever various cities, towns, and Louisiana political divisions were named for, their religious significance is long gone.

I'm given to understand that the Supreme Court carvings everyone gets to worked up about in fact have nothing to do with religion, but are depictions of historical and mythological law-givers. Regardless, religious imagery should not be on government buildings, so any such instances should be removed to a museum if historically significant, or scrapped if not.

Chaplains are fine, as long as they provide chaplaincy services without regard for which, if any, those who come to them hold. Generic places of worship on military bases or the like are also acceptable, if held to the same standard of being for all who wish to use them.

Oaths of office and before courts should not involve any god or gods, nor should the Pledge of Allegiance. People can make promises to their deities on their own time.

And the fact that "In God We Trust" hasn't been struck down as your official motto and removed from all future currency is the absolute height of hypocrisy.

I view dropping bombs on people's heads and calling it "Human Rights" - as the height of hypocrisy, in part because it's actual harmful to human rights, specifically those in Mali. Saying "In God We Trust" doesn't actually kill anyone, and I'd rather not waste money reprinting money because somewhere an atheist was offended. If you want to just scrap that as a motto, well I believe that the nation should choose its own motto; all of the nation, not just a specific group. The Pledge of Allegiance is another can of worms; for example, what does "liberty and justice for all" mean? We know that it applies to US Citizens, but does it apply to Resident Aliens? There's a plethora of debate on that issue.

Oaths of office are broken by politicians way too often, so I don't have any issues there. However, I notice that you depart from militant atheists by stating:

"Generic places of worship on military bases or the like are also acceptable, if held to the same standard of being for all who wish to use them" - and hey, I agree with that completely. But, why not have generic places of worship in schools? Same requirements as you mentioned for military bases. If a school wants to give students time to silently pray, why not? I find that prayers often help me focus before lectures, and that, when I was on varsity athletics, taking a minute just to chill my mind would also help me focus.

Another issue that I have with militant atheists is their aggressive posture towards Christian Monuments. For instance, a Christian Statute commemorating the US Army Tenth Mountain Division was removed, and I don't see why. It's there to commemorate military heroics, not to say "all religions except Christianity must be destroyed!"

For example: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/11/47340.htm

The Knights of Columbus can intervene to fend off a lawsuit over a statue of Jesus at a war memorial on federal land, a Montana federal judge ruled. Earlier this year, Madison, Wisc.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the U.S. government over the placement of the statue by the Knights near Whitefish, Mont., at a memorial commemorating the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division. The Knights have leased and maintained the 25-by-25 plot of land, located at a commercial ski resort on Big Mountain, since 1954...

The Knights say their statue was conceived to meet soldiers' request for a memorial reminiscent of the hilltop shrines they encountered in Europe during World War II. "The idea that a war memorial containing a religious symbol on a remote piece of public land somehow establishes religion in this country is at odds with the historical record, the vision of our Founding Fathers enshrined in the First Amendment and the extensive jurisprudence in this area," Supreme Knight Carl Anderson said in a statement. "It is sad that some in America have become so intolerant of religion that they are willing to remove longstanding memorials to America's war heroes to enforce their narrow view on the rest of us."

[Dyakovo]

Some of that stuff is actually what militant atheists are pushing for, including FFRF. I know, it's extremely bizarre.




*gives Atalem a cross eyed look*

Oh ok, you're not with FFRF, carry on




I'm disagreeing with a court ruling, and quite frankly, that's a valid opinion to have. I'm willing to bet that you weren't going around telling people that their opinion disagrees with reality when they opposed the Padilla Case. Geez, disagree with an opinion that militant atheists adore, and suddenly the flames come out.




How do you prove intent? Cause almost everyone argues that they're innocent. Golly gee, maybe we shouldn't have anymore murder trials. /sarcasm

They aren't militant atheists.

See my post here to see what a 'Militant Atheist' is.

The Soviet League of Militant Atheists would first visit a religious person with a tutor on Atheism (you know russel teapot etc) if he refused he would possibly lose his job. If he still kept his religion he would.

A) Be executed.
B)Be deported to a GULAG or to an under populated settlement.
C)If the NKVD had mercy on him, he would be sent to a mental hospital.
D)he could also 'dissppear'

It's one of the cruelist systems ever devised.

Silly ROG... A militant atheist is any atheist who lets it be known that they are an atheist.

[Shofercia]

Some of that stuff is actually what militant atheists are pushing for, including FFRF. I know, it's extremely bizarre.

Cut it down to the ones that actually match what you said...
You're right, It's bizarre... What are they thinking, expecting the government to abide by the constitution?

I know, what were all those slaves thinking, running away, and completely ignoring the Compromise of 1850. So very bizarre /sarcasm

No, I'm not comparing this to slavery, just pointing out the sheer stupidity of blindly following the law.

I'm disagreeing with a court ruling, and quite frankly, that's a valid opinion to have. I'm willing to bet that you weren't going around telling people that their opinion disagrees with reality when they opposed the Padilla Case. Geez, disagree with an opinion that militant atheists adore, and suddenly the flames come out.

Sill having trouble with reality I see...

Once again: my disagreement with a case that you really, really, really love, does not mean that I'm having trouble with reality, and if you can't see, I know a great eye doctor

[Shofercia]

They aren't militant atheists.

See my post here to see what a 'Militant Atheist' is.

Silly ROG... A militant atheist is any atheist who lets it be known that they are an atheist.

Lacking arguments so desperately, that you have to place words into my mouth Dyakovo?

[Shofercia]

For those who are having problems with the term of what militant atheism means, perhaps Tumblr can explain: http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/militant-a ... 1325202244

"I’m an atheist. No. It’s worse than that, actually. I’m a loud mouth atheist, I’m a combative, argumentative, aggressive, “militant atheist.” I talk about my favorite delusion every chance I get. I deliberately use provocative language, substituting “delusion” for religion and “sky fairy” or “imaginary friend” for God; I ask people to justify their belief all the time; I put forward arguments against god to anyone who will listen; I invite positive arguments for the existence of god from anyone willing to produce one; I demand coherent definitions of the thing “God” from anyone who might understand the need for such a definition; I blog about religion; I seek out religious people who might like to argue the matter and pick fights in which I have no intention of being gentle.

I’m a militant atheist.

That's what a militant atheist is, someone who compares his tactics to Fundies, someone who is there just to argue constantly, about something that he or she doesn't believe exists. That's the modern term, basically someone with an anti-religious fetish. Would it be better if I called militant atheists as those with an anti-religious fetish?

[Dyakovo]

Cut it down to the ones that actually match what you said...
You're right, It's bizarre... What are they thinking, expecting the government to abide by the constitution?

I know, what were all those slaves thinking, running away, and completely ignoring the Compromise of 1850. So very bizarre /sarcasm

No, I'm not comparing this to slavery, just pointing out the sheer stupidity of blindly following the law.

Uh-huh... Sure you're not. That's why you've done it a couple of times now.

Sill having trouble with reality I see...

Once again: my disagreement with a case that you really, really, really love, does not mean that I'm having trouble with reality, and if you can't see, I know a great eye doctor

Silly ROG... A militant atheist is any atheist who lets it be known that they are an atheist.

Lacking arguments so desperately, that you have to place words into my mouth Dyakovo?

Actually I was mocking you for thinking that the FFRF are militant and for thinking that there's any flaming going on.

[The Realm of God]

For those who are having problems with the term of what militant atheism means, perhaps Tumblr can explain: http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/militant-a ... 1325202244

"I’m an atheist. No. It’s worse than that, actually. I’m a loud mouth atheist, I’m a combative, argumentative, aggressive, “militant atheist.” I talk about my favorite delusion every chance I get. I deliberately use provocative language, substituting “delusion” for religion and “sky fairy” or “imaginary friend” for God; I ask people to justify their belief all the time; I put forward arguments against god to anyone who will listen; I invite positive arguments for the existence of god from anyone willing to produce one; I demand coherent definitions of the thing “God” from anyone who might understand the need for such a definition; I blog about religion; I seek out religious people who might like to argue the matter and pick fights in which I have no intention of being gentle.

I’m a militant atheist.

That's what a militant atheist is, someone who compares his tactics to Fundies, someone who is there just to argue constantly, about something that he or she doesn't believe exists. That's the modern term, basically someone with an anti-religious fetish. Would it be better if I called militant atheists as those with an anti-religious fetish?

They call themselves Anti-Theists if that helps.

[Tlaceceyaya]

For those who are having problems with the term of what militant atheism means, perhaps Tumblr can explain: http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/militant-a ... 1325202244

"I’m an atheist. No. It’s worse than that, actually. I’m a loud mouth atheist, I’m a combative, argumentative, aggressive, “militant atheist.” I talk about my favorite delusion every chance I get. I deliberately use provocative language, substituting “delusion” for religion and “sky fairy” or “imaginary friend” for God; I ask people to justify their belief all the time; I put forward arguments against god to anyone who will listen; I invite positive arguments for the existence of god from anyone willing to produce one; I demand coherent definitions of the thing “God” from anyone who might understand the need for such a definition; I blog about religion; I seek out religious people who might like to argue the matter and pick fights in which I have no intention of being gentle.

I’m a militant atheist.

That's what a militant atheist is, someone who compares his tactics to Fundies, someone who is there just to argue constantly, about something that he or she doesn't believe exists. That's the modern term, basically someone with an anti-religious fetish. Would it be better if I called militant atheists as those with an anti-religious fetish?

And perhaps Dawkins' description of himself as a militant atheist, right at this url at the bottom which will not go into a bbcode, should also clear up problems. It doesn't mean you actively seek out fights. It means that you are against religion and will openly oppose it. It does not mean you go around saying "Do you believe in god?" and then proving people wrong on the street.

EDIT: I think this link... broke the page.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=yRZYc-L ... =PA118&dq=“a+fairly+militant+atheist,+with+a+fair+degree+of+active+hostility
+toward+religion”&hl=en#v=onepage&q=“a%20fairly%20militant%20atheist%2C%20with%20a%20fair%20degree%20of%20active%20hostility
%20toward%20religion”&f=false
Copy/paste then remove the spaces.

[Noobubersland]

For those who are having problems with the term of what militant atheism means, perhaps Tumblr can explain: http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/militant-a ... 1325202244

"I’m an atheist. No. It’s worse than that, actually. I’m a loud mouth atheist, I’m a combative, argumentative, aggressive, “militant atheist.” I talk about my favorite delusion every chance I get. I deliberately use provocative language, substituting “delusion” for religion and “sky fairy” or “imaginary friend” for God; I ask people to justify their belief all the time; I put forward arguments against god to anyone who will listen; I invite positive arguments for the existence of god from anyone willing to produce one; I demand coherent definitions of the thing “God” from anyone who might understand the need for such a definition; I blog about religion; I seek out religious people who might like to argue the matter and pick fights in which I have no intention of being gentle.

I’m a militant atheist.

That's what a militant atheist is, someone who compares his tactics to Fundies, someone who is there just to argue constantly, about something that he or she doesn't believe exists. That's the modern term, basically someone with an anti-religious fetish. Would it be better if I called militant atheists as those with an anti-religious fetish?

Still prefer them to fundies, as militant atheists are less likely to come around and burn your house down

[The Realm of God]

For those who are having problems with the term of what militant atheism means, perhaps Tumblr can explain: http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/militant-a ... 1325202244



That's what a militant atheist is, someone who compares his tactics to Fundies, someone who is there just to argue constantly, about something that he or she doesn't believe exists. That's the modern term, basically someone with an anti-religious fetish. Would it be better if I called militant atheists as those with an anti-religious fetish?

Still prefer them to fundies, as militant atheists are less likely to come around and burn your house down

Unless it's 1919 and it's the Cheka who are the Militant Atheists.