"to exhibit the behaviors typically associated with being an atheist. "

I don't know any atheists who get together to talk about their lack of belief, I don't know any atheists who protest the music of Jesus Christ Superstar, or who can't appreciate Handel's Messiah because of it's subject matter.

Ridiculous straw man argument.

I'm not saying that's Tyson himself saying this as much as the author editorializing.

to talk about their lack of belief.

And there are Sunday Assemblies and other groups where atheists get together as a community.

One of the issues that gets talked about quite a bit here is that the term atheist means something very, very simple. OTOH, many who define themselves as atheist identify with other things that go beyond that simple term.

NDT doesn't feel aligned with some of those things and rejects the term because he sees it as more than a simple lack of belief.

He is not alone.

Atheists aren't talking about their lack of belief, they're talking about how belief impacts their lives anyway.

I know it's a fucking running joke that many people keep trying to push that "oh, why are atheists so concerned about religion", well if it didn't impact our lives and our society in so many negative ways we wouldn't need to discuss it!

"several off site chat rooms" (per one of the A/A hosts) to talk about the Religion group and theists who post here. Bit obsessive, seems to me.

She's saying we quickly jump to conclusions about behaviors based on labels about belief. So if it's the actual behaviors that bother us, maybe we should just leave the labels at home, and address the behaviors.

She's not making an argument about atheists. She's making an argument about dealing with other people as human beings.

They actually live without God AND without obsessing about him all the time.

See post 9. Not that you give a crap.

believe but others only see the actions. The fruit the tree bears. I do not care if someone tells me 'I am holy genius' if they act like a profane fool, that's how I define them. The labels people give themselves are a sort of public relations, 'Hello, I am devout, I know God personally, my decisions are all influenced by that relationship I have'. It is just name dropping. What matters is....their actions.
Lots of people will make lots of claims about themselves which are unseen and thus unknown, defined only by the outward actions which give form and reality to thought or belief.
Basically, what you tell me you believe is irrelevant. It's what you do. That's it. Same in politics. Many people like to say 'I believe in full equality and I'm basically a socialist' but then they advocate for inequality and conservative economics because 'I'm a pragmatist'. There is no evidence that such a person is for equality, is a socialist nor a pragmatist. The evidence says the person opposes equality and favors current fiscal policy.

Labels come with baggage and that baggage doesn't always fit the person carrying it.

Actions, not beliefs. That's the money shot.

supreme being or deity that created us all or watches over us to check our behavior. I don't feel a need to identify with certain group because of my non-belief or to advertise it to others. A few of my friends and family know about my lack of belief, but there are many people I know who would change their opinion of me if they knew. Some would consider me to be so sinful and evil that they wouldn't associate with me at all even though I probably exhibit as many or more "Christian" attributes than a lot of regular church goers.

"he doesn't take himself to exhibit the behaviors typically associated with being an atheist. "

What is a typical atheist's behavior?

Maybe people make these inferences because the media likes to portray atheists in a certain way. That the vocal atheists represent the behavior of the majority.

Is there a majority of atheists that don't listen to religious music and belong to atheists groups?

Or are we just bashing the bad "militant atheists" again. And trying to show what a "good one' should act like?

I also don't know why any atheists who is vocal about atheism and the problems with religion or fights against the influence of religion in the public sector is labeled a militant.

Why do you think?

It's that the term "militant atheist" is nonsensical, and bespeaks an ignorance about atheism. People who apply that term to atheists simply don't know what the fuck they're talking about, and should be told so.

The militant atheists, at least the ones on DU, affect this kind of sneering, supercilious contempt for believers and our beliefs, almost as if they're saying "you're just too dumb to see we're right". They're not content to just not believe or to resist religious laws (which most of us would agree with) or even to proselytize their lack of belief, they seem personally offended that others believe and take every opportunity to attack our beliefs, even if only vaguely connected to the subject.

for that stuff about burning churches.

the poster is saying what you consider a militant atheists and what he thinks most people consider a militant atheists are two different thing. (his take on the matter)

He asked the question about burning churches sarcastically, because, of course he didn't think you would do such a thing.

I think militant atheists is a term used for many who are simple atheist activists to paint them as radical. To me it is derisive. And unless you are talking about someone who does burn down churches, I don't like seeing it used.

But I suppose it is a phrase that many disagree about.

So again, you were not being accused of burning churches, you were being told the poster doesn't think you fit into the militant category.

what I do have are a very particular set of skills,.....



"Taken" reference.

You really aren't one. Go the Militant Atheist page and you will see more of what that really means outside of your head.

This is their cover photo:


And these are some of the picture they share which seem like attitudes you would descry here on DU:




It really doesn't mean what you think it means.

That word and "militant atheist" are words you don't know.

But, seriously, I'm trying to let you know that if you go around saying you are a militant atheist in the real world you are aligning yourself with even much worse attitudes than the ones in the pictures and I don't think that is what you mean. I'm seriously trying to let you know that the label doesn't mean what you think it means.

If you want to have a conversation with me, you will have to promise to never use the N-word with me ever again.

Absent such an unqualified promise, we have absolutely nothing to say to each other.

I don't care if you don't want to have a "discussion." You don't get to decide where and to whom I reply. That's not how this thing works. There is ignore if you can't handle it.

And I am trying to help you understand what "militant atheist" really means. Using that label in the real world might cause you some reactions you don't intend.

Yes or no.

2 people serving on juries don't get out enough to have heard the classic example of a loaded question.

Thanks.

as that flew over his head.

You don't even remember the context in which it was used for goodness sake. I see no reason why it would ever need to come up. I fully realize talking about reclamation of words is a concept well about your head. So yeah, I won't be using it with you.

that is your problem and you can fix that problem by putting that person on ignore. So I suggest that you stop whining about who is responding to you and that you stop making demands that you cannot enforce, and just put all the people who upset you so damn much on ignore. Try it. Your DU experience will improve.

Or continue to have your fake outrage every time specific people enter the discussion. Your choice.

but you would be wise to take Goblin's advice on this. No conversation needed, just re-read his posts regarding the connotation of "militant atheist". I see you stating that you are a "militant atheist" over and over again, but I have yet to see what actions you take to back up that assertion. Being an atheist who is angry about the influence of religion on our lives is not being militant.

Goblinmonger is trying to do you a favor. But if you don't believe him, try the dictionary. Militant: "Combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods."

For someone who has nothing to say to him.

And a sense of design.

If you see anything there besides internet memes, I'd appreciate the link.

Everyone else should just surrender.


I found this one and thought it was pretty amusing:

Jeeze. You atheists have no sense of humor.

Because there are no real-life examples.

It's funny for exactly the reason you said it was.

Any reason why you did not direct your comment to me?

that "militant atheists" do act like militant Christians?

That there is no difference?

Or are you saying it is ludicrous to compare a "militant atheist" like Dawkins, to a true militant like the Christian woman in the original photo?

comparing apples and oranges is a very weak point.

What do you think of the agnostic pictured there?

The image is supposed to show extremist christians, extremist muslims, cowardly agnostics (Militant?) and super nicely dressed white male at a keyboard which, I guess, is meant to say that this is as militant as an atheist can get.

Frankly, it's total bullshit, but another favorite meme put up by those who feel superior.

Do you recognize this guy by any chance?

Please go to the Interfaith group and ask them what they think a "militant atheist" is. And compare that to what you think one is.

Also, please consider visiting this link.

6 weeks max until the pizza get delivered.

There are no 'behaviors typically associated with being an atheist'. Atheists just don't believe in a god, that's all.

Atheists can be great philanthropists or mass murderers; brilliant or stupid; left-wingers or right-wingers; etc.

It would be prejudiced to refer to 'behaviors typically associated with being Catholic/ Protestant/ Jewish/ Muslim; etc.' (and at least some of these groups have specific actions that they must perform or avoid, like saying prayers, or avoiding specific foods). It is just as prejudiced with regard to atheists.

Being an atheist doesn't mean that you don't listen to Jesus Christ Superstar or Handel's Messiah, or that you go to meetings just to discuss your atheism. If other people have some weird ideas about atheists, that doesn't make that the definition of atheism.

I'm pretty sure that is a behavior typically associated with being an atheist.

Cause I always have to struggle a little when I pick.

And why did God put hair on our chins, because it is so hard to shave there.

Which leads to only one conclusion: god loves you less.

but it doesn't have the same dexterity.

I don't think God loves me at all, never answers my texts.

I have to thank you for the laughs.

My little finger doesn't work as well either.

I forgot, God doesn't want me to shave.

[img][/img]

And I should have known about the chin thing.

Is that a tire on his head?

for the Hasidim.

I think it looks like a buffer brush.

The dress of Hasidim is peculiar to say the least.

But I hear it's God approved.

that atheists don't have to wear funny hats. That isn't part of the "typical atheist behavior". Well, unless we want to.

interpreting DONT CUT YOUR MOTHER FUCKING HAIR as "just leave the sideburns".

[img][/img]

[img][/img]


http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-Jewish-people-with-the-furry-circle-hats-called

Those hats look ridiculous..

Connotations that believers created, and that some atheists themselves have internalized. (And worse, then use to attack other atheists.)

What If (insert a group here) Were Defined By Their Actions?

The problem here, is atheists are too varied to say any actions define them.

So when people start assigning labels to who groups based on the actions of a subset, there is likely to be trouble.

Let people call themselves whatever they want, but judge them on their actions.

Each episode is so well done. I crave each new one more than the last. Brilliant, entertaining & educational. A magnificent compliment to the original Carl Sagan series.

I was skeptical at first about the new series, even hesitant, but I dare say that the new Cosmos is in a different league from the original, it's that good. And not to overshadow its roots, Mr. Tyson repeatedly comes full circle back to the original series, paying homage to it and Mr. Sagan.

You might also like Brian Cox's series.

We need more and more of this.