Aggressive atheists

[DMB]

I liked this article a lot

http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/09/aggressive-atheism-anyone/

We’ve heard a lot about “aggressive atheism” one way or the other in the last week. I’ve been accused of it myself, and what it seems to mean is any atheism which dares to speak its name. Religious believers are so accustomed to the protection historically afforded by the reluctance of the media, or anyone else, to criticize religious belief that they see any dissent at all as ‘aggressive’.

But then, why wouldn’t we be “aggressive” (if that’s what it must be called)?

For centuries, religious evangelists have promoted their beliefs using everything from threats of eternal damnation to incarceration and torture. Now that dissenters have at last found a voice, it’s perhaps not surprising that our comments sometimes get a bit edgy. OK, the inquisition doesn’t operate any more, but the threats are still there. I was threatened myself, ever so nicely, online, only this week. I was posting in a medical discussion forum which had strayed onto dangerous hallowed ground. I described how a creationist had threatened me (and he really meant it) with eternal damnation in the fires of hell because I couldn’t accept that the earth was only 6000 years old, and yet if I even mention the fact that belief in the centuries-old writings of scientifically unsophisticated peasants might be inappropriate in the 21st century, I’m the one that’s being ‘aggressive’. One of the other medics on the forum replied that the creationist wasn’t being aggressive because he was simply ‘stating the facts’. In other words, anything I say about religion is aggressive because it’s wrong, and nothing they say about their belief is aggressive, because it’s right. It’s very difficult to argue with that sort of arrogant certainty and self-righteousness.

There's also a link from this article to the same writer's deconversion story.

[rog]

Let's hope the tide is turning :)
The 'aggressive' label stems from the idea that there may of always been atheists but they had the good grace to keep it to themselves, now, shock horror they are starting to speak out - and when that happens other people start to realise that they have a choice.

[Roo St. Gallus]

Let's hope the tide is turning :)
The 'aggressive' label stems from the idea that there may of always been atheists but they had the good grace to keep it to themselves, now, shock horror they are starting to speak out - and when that happens other people start to realise that they have a choice.

Bingo!

And they don't want anybody else to realize they have a choice. A reasonable choice.

When I get those kinds of accusations, I tend to point out that 'aggressive' is hellfire and damnation salvation preachers on downtown streetcorners in any major city in the US, or demanding that one's religious beliefs be put on display at the local county courthouse...at taxpayer expense.

[DanB]

I reject the "aggressive" label. How does one go about aggressively disbelieving something? Rejection is only possible to the level of the proselytism encountered.

So, people complaining about "aggressive" atheism are actually complaining about feeling openly rejected. I'm openly atheist.

[Politesse]

Referring to anyone who opens their mouth as aggressive is deeply exaggerating. But then, claiming that this is the only thing the label could refer to is also exaggerating. I don't think many people would explain themselves as opposing atheists' right to mention what they are in passing. It's more likely that they would define "militant" or "aggressive" as describing someone who wishes to force their views on another, like your street preachers. They may not be right that this is actually happening, but that doesn't make it less of a straw man strategy to define your opponent's terms in ways that they would not.

[AndyJHarding]

Good article, thanks for posting.

[Ozymandias]

Some atheists definitely are aggressive. Death threats against the pope seem pretty aggressive to me.

[DanB]

Some atheists definitely are aggressive. Death threats against the pope seem pretty aggressive to me.Agreed but, I think the usage is meant to be a little more inclusive than that in its scope.

[DMB]

Some atheists definitely are aggressive. Death threats against the pope seem pretty aggressive to me.

Who has made such threats?

[Rie]

Any threats against the Pope would stem from dislike of what he represents. which is aggressive Catholicism... agressive in the sense that it puts people in the headlock of guilt if they dare to move away from its tenets.

[Silly Sausage]

I'd second DMB's question; who is making death threats against the pope? The only people who I know of recently who have been speaking in an aggressive, threatening manner towards the pope were Islam 4 UK folk/'March Against Crusades' folk who were protesting in London. They are hardly atheists.

[DanB]

...They are hardly atheists.Granted but, I think it presumptuous to imply that within the atheist demographic there are not persons who profess violence and murder. You'll find those people in any broadly defined demographic with, the possible exception of "pacifists".

[Silly Sausage]

Of course. I would agree that within the atheist community and also in religion there are those who would happily commit acts of violence to get their point across.
I don't think any atheists I have ever met have been the kind to threaten violence against religious figures or followers, but I was just wondering if FUBG had anyone/any group in particular in mind.

[trendkill]

...They are hardly atheists.Granted but, I think it presumptuous to imply that within the atheist demographic there are not persons who profess violence and murder. You'll find those people in any broadly defined demographic with, the possible exception of "pacifists".
Sure. Now all we need is an example of an atheist making a threat against the Pope, and this will actually be a good point.

[DanB]

Of course. I would agree that within the atheist community and also in religion there are those who would happily commit acts of violence to get their point across.
I don't think any atheists I have ever met have been the kind to threaten violence against religious figures or followers, but I was just wondering if FUBG had anyone/any group in particular in mind.
Agreed. Such a statement does beg for some specific examples.

[trendkill]

...They are hardly atheists.Granted but, I think it presumptuous to imply that within the atheist demographic there are not persons who profess violence and murder. You'll find those people in any broadly defined demographic with, the possible exception of "pacifists".I think it is beyond presumptuous to simply assume that the Pope has been threatened by atheists without pointing to any examples.

[DanB]

...They are hardly atheists.Granted but, I think it presumptuous to imply that within the atheist demographic there are not persons who profess violence and murder. You'll find those people in any broadly defined demographic with, the possible exception of "pacifists".
Sure. Now all we need is an example of an atheist making a threat against the Pope, and this will actually be a good point.Actually, having the example would, render the point moot. That's the point. It stands as is, supported by observed probability.

[DanB]

...They are hardly atheists.Granted but, I think it presumptuous to imply that within the atheist demographic there are not persons who profess violence and murder. You'll find those people in any broadly defined demographic with, the possible exception of "pacifists".I think it is beyond presumptuous to simply assume that the Pope has been threatened by atheists without pointing to any examples.Well, we disagree. I think it presumptuous to propose but not to assume.

[trendkill]

...They are hardly atheists.Granted but, I think it presumptuous to imply that within the atheist demographic there are not persons who profess violence and murder. You'll find those people in any broadly defined demographic with, the possible exception of "pacifists".
Sure. Now all we need is an example of an atheist making a threat against the Pope, and this will actually be a good point.Actually, having the example would, render the point moot. That's the point. It stands as is, supported by observed probability.
And completely apart from any real relevance to the topic.

[trendkill]

...They are hardly atheists.Granted but, I think it presumptuous to imply that within the atheist demographic there are not persons who profess violence and murder. You'll find those people in any broadly defined demographic with, the possible exception of "pacifists".I think it is beyond presumptuous to simply assume that the Pope has been threatened by atheists without pointing to any examples.Well, we disagree. I think it presumptuous to propose but not to assume.

Also irrelevant, as it was both proposed and assumed.

[DanB]

...They are hardly atheists.Granted but, I think it presumptuous to imply that within the atheist demographic there are not persons who profess violence and murder. You'll find those people in any broadly defined demographic with, the possible exception of "pacifists".
Sure. Now all we need is an example of an atheist making a threat against the Pope, and this will actually be a good point.Actually, having the example would, render the point moot. That's the point. It stands as is, supported by observed probability.
And completely apart from any real relevance to the topic.Which topic? The topic of the opening post or the topic of the inclusive nature of the atheist demographic?

[DanB]

...They are hardly atheists.Granted but, I think it presumptuous to imply that within the atheist demographic there are not persons who profess violence and murder. You'll find those people in any broadly defined demographic with, the possible exception of "pacifists".I think it is beyond presumptuous to simply assume that the Pope has been threatened by atheists without pointing to any examples.Well, we disagree. I think it presumptuous to propose but not to assume.

Also irrelevant, as it was both proposed and assumed.I think you're presuming a supposed irrelevance for a proposal which only assumed a position counter to one that was proposed presumptuously.

[Jet Black]

the use of the word aggressive is just an adjective to make atheists sound scary. it's just PR spin. There is nothing aggressive about it. outspoken or evangelical, perhaps, but not aggressive.

[Ozymandias]

I didn't have anyone in mind in particular, but I am sure you don't have to go far in forums like these to find people suggesting offing the pope. I would regard that as aggressive.

I also think Dawkins calling the Pope the "enemy of humanity" is pretty aggressive.

Note that I am not making any value judgement here - I was just saying that some atheists are undoubtedly aggressive (just like any other demographic).

Sorry if I offended anyone.

[Silly Sausage]

I don't think anyone was offended FUBG, don't worry. :)
I don't see Dawkins calling the pope an 'enemy to humanity' as aggressive, I call it the truth. The pope speaks out against basic human rights and condemns millions of his followers to poverty, disease and death; I think it is he who is the aggressor.

[DMB]

Dawkins was speaking after the human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson. Robertson has made a reasoned case why the pope, as the claimed head of a "state" ought to be held responsible before the International Criminal Court for "crimes against humanity". I assumed at the time that Dawkins was speaking within that context.