Comments on: Atheists split over “militancy” http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2007/04/22/atheists-split-over-militancy/ Since 2006, Hanlon's Razor has offered a clear, fair, liberal analysis of today's important events. Fri, 10 Sep 2010 01:50:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: naturalcode http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2007/04/22/atheists-split-over-militancy/comment-page-1/#comment-626 naturalcode Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:05:37 +0000 http://hanlonsrazor.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/atheists-split-over-militancy/#comment-626 People <i>riot in the streets</i> because of a drawing of their religious figure. I think there's no question that they're quite a bit too sensitive to criticism. People riot in the streets because of a drawing of their religious figure. I think there’s no question that they’re quite a bit too sensitive to criticism.

]]> By: Darwinator http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2007/04/22/atheists-split-over-militancy/comment-page-1/#comment-625 Darwinator Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:39:15 +0000 http://hanlonsrazor.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/atheists-split-over-militancy/#comment-625 Hey there H, I think the guys you mentioned (Dawkins & Harris) can point you in the direction of an answer to why being vocal about one's atheism is considered "militant". Boiled down, I'd say it's because of the opposition. Religion isn't really used to being attacked in this way. Harris deals with it repeatedly in his "conversational intolerance" spiels. I think anything that contradicts religion is quite stunning to the religious crowd. They're just not used to seeing it. Hence it *feels* (to them) to be quite a bit more aggressive than it actually is. I could easily be wrong. I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on it. Regards, D Hey there H,

I think the guys you mentioned (Dawkins & Harris) can point you in the direction of an answer to why being vocal about one’s atheism is considered “militant”.

Boiled down, I’d say it’s because of the opposition. Religion isn’t really used to being attacked in this way. Harris deals with it repeatedly in his “conversational intolerance” spiels. I think anything that contradicts religion is quite stunning to the religious crowd. They’re just not used to seeing it. Hence it *feels* (to them) to be quite a bit more aggressive than it actually is.

I could easily be wrong. I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts on it.

Regards,
D

]]>