Militant Atheism

[kumarei]

I went to GenCon over the weekend (there will probably be more on that later), and afterward a bunch of people got together to go to lunch/dinner. We were sitting around the table when the subject of Militant Atheism came up.

I said that I didn’t really think that the “Militant Atheists” were militant, and then someone gave the example of Richard

Comments

[lyceum_arabica]

Fundamentalist might make a better term than militant. Let's say, just to pick a potential definition, that a fundamentalist is someone who follows the strictest possible tenants of their belief system, and who believes any less strict implementation is invalid, equivalent at best to not following the belief system at all (and at worst, to trying to sabotage the belief system). Also, the fundamentalist usually believes the implications of another person not following the fundamentalists belief system are severe.

So, in terms of atheism, a fundamentalist might believe that all religions are inherently destructive, to the individual member and to society as a whole. That people who believe in religion are at best fools who've given up their individuality and common sense in exchange for an imaginary friend or in exchange for the excuse to wield power over other people... and at worst, people who follow religions are dangerous. That true peace is only possible when everyone becomes an atheist, and all religions are ended.

This is an idea I've seen frequently enough... from fellow geeks, at least. I haven't really read dawkins.

[kumarei]

The idea that religions are destructive is certainly there in Dawkins's work, although the first paragraph doesn't really mesh. Generally, he has respect for anything between atheism and deism, thinks that religion is generally harmful, and that many fundamentalist religions are specifically causing obvious harm right now.