[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

I don't see why people (indeed, many atheists themselves) see "militant" atheism as bad. Considering how many more loud-mouthed or violent religious people there are, and the people who believe them simply because they make more noise, "activist" atheism is a good thing.

It's based on the simple premise of "treat others as you wish to be treated," combined with a dab of "two wrongs don't make a right." If I don't appreciate having someone shout at people and proclaim that they're terrible for not believing something, I'll be equally unimpressed with someone who's doing the same just because they do believe in something.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Why is it called "militant" atheism anyway?

militant |ˈmilətənt|
adjective
combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods : an uprising by militant Islamic fundamentalists.
noun
a person who is active in this way.

Note that in the definition there is no mention of someone who is killing or harming others, just that such people typically favor those methods. That's just being technical, of course.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

How many atheist openly advocate killing religious people, compared to how many religious people advocate killing "heretics" and "disbelievers," and how many countries actually do so?

I wouldn't push this point too strongly. For certain, throughout history religion has been used as an excuse to do harm. Even in the modern day, Islam is being invoked (distorted, really) for such purposes. However, as you're probably aware, religion is not absolutely necessary for setting people off to do harm to others.

I would not be surprised if an atheist group (perhaps small) did reach the conclusion that "we'd all be better off without religion" and then felt that the best way to go about it would be to go about killing the ultra-religious. Probably the only reason that it hasn't happened yet is because atheism is a relative minority at the moment. Once it becomes larger and there are more people with violent tendencies and shared views grouped together, you'd probably see some action. It's just speculation, but the point is that it could happen very easily. You shouldn't rule it out.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

All social animals, yes even humans, have innate and learned rules of social conduct, with no need for religion. Religions' rules ("Thou shalt not kill") are so disregarded that they might as well not exist. Ironically, religious rules on diet and fasting seem to be taken more seriously by more people than the restriction against killing each other.

The same could be said for the laws of various countries. Mind you, laws are often based on "social rules of conduct." Religion just acts as another set of rules and laws. If you ask me, the laws in both cases (religion and state) can be distorted and warped to meet agendas by powerful figures.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

If not for religious differences, they would have been able to live peacefully together there.

I wish it were that simple. Tell me, are all Americans able to get along perfectly peacefully? No, of course not. Within America there are hundreds of divisions - there's the color of your skin, what region you come from, which sports team you're a fan of, and so on. Sure, we're not at constant war with one another over the differences, but every now and then (and with greater frequency than there really should be) someone is seriously injured or killed over those differences. It probably was not your intention to make religion out to be the root of all evil, but in seemingly ignoring all other aspects of conflict between humans, it's coming across that way, and I disagree with that.