“Militant Atheism” — I don’t think that means what you think it means.
There is this new tendency to label outspoken atheists as “Militant Atheists.” Here’s why I think it’s wrong.
I wish I could renounce the label Atheist, to begin with. In case you didn’t know, “atheist” is a label given to us by believers. It used to be a derogatory label, a Christian slur against us coined in France in the 16th century as a reaction to growing free thought, skeptical inquiry, and intellectual criticism of religion. When someone called you an atheist it was not a good thing. “Atheist” was used exclusively as an insult. Nobody in their right mind would have called themselves an atheist back then, if you were an atheist, you were an outcast.
No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.
– Sam Harris, The End of Faith
I concur.
I can’t singlehandedly ditch the label entirely, as it is a way to identify our lack of belief in deities. Until we unbelievers get to a consensus on what would be the best term to describe ourselves, I am in some way forced to keep it, sadly.
But on top of that, now I am labeled “militant.” This is totally inaccurate, and I – and hopefully you – won’t take it silently.
Let’s look it up. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Militant:
1. engaged in warfare or combat
2. aggressively active
We might be loud, we might be strident, we might be angry, but we are not militant. Advocacy, rational inquiry, is not militancy. We are not aggressive, we are not violent, we are not at war, we are not fighting, we are not blowing ourselves and our detractors up to make a point, we don’t fly plains into buildings. Heck! we don’t even knock on anyone’s door to dis-indoctrinate them. Our only weapon is our rationality. We have rational discussions, we challenge irrational beliefs. That is what we do.
We have to speak up — we need to! It is the only way to normalize a concept that has been considered taboo for ages; that’s how we de-demonize a label. Furthermore, it’s been scientifically proven that the more we force people to think about their beliefs, the more we force them to justify their ideas, the more cognitive dissonance we generate, more and more people will break free from their dogmas. Once they abandon one dogma, there goes the rest of their belief system, and they start walking their path toward rationality.
That feeling of discomfort when an atheist points out facts and evidence that obviously contradict your strongly held beliefs, is not us hurting you, it’s your cognitive dissonance at work.
But there is more to it, it has an ulterior motive. It’s the fallacy of disambiguation, or poisoning the well: a technique that by disparaging the source deems all that comes from it worthless and unreliable.
There isn’t any inherent dogma in atheism that advocates any violence in the defense of non-belief; so, no, I won’t take it. I am not militant. I am not violent.
Next time you want to come up with yet another derogatory term to label us unbelievers, check your facts before applying your unsolicited labels wrongly.
RELATED ARTICLES
- We can’t save the world.. but, who’s trying?
- Kangaroos in the bible – Tweet of The Day
- Selective morality – Tweet of the day
- The burden of proof – Tweet of the day
- Do you believe in magic? – Tweet of the day
-
Comment by KaraC on November 30, 2011 at 12:48am -
I think that followers of religion like to use "militant" since it carries the suggestion of aggression. I am fine with the "vigorous and active" meaning, but they construe us as aggressive because we challenge the privileged position that religion has and still has. They are not used to having to justify their activities and those of their church, so when they do get push back they reagrd it as aggressive behaviour. In reality the churches tend to be the one's restricting other people's freedom of choise or freedom to be who they are. We are normally forced into a stance of reacting because they attempt to introduce their dogma into law or education, such as trying to get creationism taught in schools, preventing marriage equality and so forth, with no justification beyond their particular book of myths.
-
Comment by The Doctor on November 30, 2011 at 3:56am -
Definitions and labels they can be descriptive and yet carry such negative connotations. (A)theism shouldn't mean anything other than lack of beleife in god(s) though if I tell the average person where I live I'm an atheist it has a strong reaction eithere positive or negative, why is that? I don't think it should have anymore of reaction than if I said "I have brown hair". Me stating i'm an atheist doesen't hurt/affect anyone adversly so why the connotation? As far as "Militant" goes, that's another qualifier that holds misguided notions, as already aptly stated (much better than I can) here, "militant" doesen't have to be a bad thing..it can be but the term isn't neccesarily.
-
Comment by Daniel Clear on November 30, 2011 at 9:41am -
I hate the term millitant, it's just silly but Atheist I'm ok with. I was unaware it was first coined as an insult but now I've learned this I embrace the term all the more. As other minorities have learned, embracing the derogitory term is the most effective defence against its use.
for that reason alone i might come to accept militant, justto hear "hey no fair! that's our word for you!"
-
Comment by Liz LaPoint on December 6, 2011 at 2:48pm -
Anytime rational, progressive people voice their concerns, standing against the norm, they are called "militant" and "radical" and "extreme". It is an effort to control the new, forward-thinking groups with ostracizing. It works with some, who are more prone to needing others and needing to feel included by the "in-group", but those who are able to stand on their own two feet can see through it. This happens with vegetarians and vegans, feminists, environmentalists, atheists, etc. I agree with Sam Harris. He makes excellent points.
Comment
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
What's new today
Forum
Why isn't a 14 year old girl old enough to consent to sex?
Started by Unseen in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Helen Pluckrose 40 minutes ago. 32 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Consolations of Atheism
Posted by richard vitzthum on May 25, 2013 at 11:38am 14 Comments 3 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!
Join Think Atheist