So if writing a book makes you a militant atheist what does shooting up an island of teenagers make you?

The term "militant" atheist is often misused. When people use it they probably mean "evangelical" atheist. Writing a book does not make you militant. A militant atheist is one who uses violence to promote atheism or destroy religion (by analogy to what a "militant Christian" does).

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

Shooting up an island of teenagers makes you a mass murderer. Not necessarily anything to do with religion.

Yes, and a psychopath. I find it pathetic that a person can be called "militant" for writing a book that questions a belief.

Writing a book doesn't make people atheists.

However, someone who's already an atheist might choose to write a book about it or about something unrelated to the topic of atheism.

No, that would make you a terrorist. I know of no persons motivated by "atheism" to murder a multitude of people. But when it comes to religion different story altogether.

Christians will criticise an atheist for writing a book of opinions they disagree with, but lie and justify a Christian madman.

Militant atheist is a misnomer. A misnomer created by atheists. Dawkins called for atheists to be more militant in their rejection of religions. He called for atheists to speak out against religions and to actively talk about atheism. He termed this "militant atheism".

The true meaning of militant, however, has to do with the willingness to use force. A true militant atheist was Stalin who had Christians killed and Mao who had Buddhists killed. Just as Kind Richard would inherently be a militant Christian and Osama Bin Laden would be a militant Muslim.

If find this discussion rather silly. An atheist redefines "militant atheist" to refer to himself writing a book and then atheists try to make a comparison between militant atheists and militant whatever else. Not terribly logical.

As far as what Dawkins believes, I very strongly disagree with him. However, as long as he is willing to keep his brand of militant to be writing of books and speaking, I will gladly and willing protect his right to do so with even my life.

Edit:

I note by the thumbs down that people seem to disagree. As they have provided no rebuttal to my argument, I can only guess as to what issues they have with my statements, however, I imagine that they think militant atheists is a new term coined for those writing books.

So in rebuttal I present:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_At...

Note that this "League of militant atheists" actually did end up leading to violence perpetrated against the religious. Just as I said, the militant atheist label is a misnomer.

Have you not heard that "the pen is mightier than the sword"??

Many of the folks who call themselves "atheists" on this board are in enthusuastic agreement with Richard Dawkins...he is sort of the "guru of atheism".

On the other hand, I doubt you are going to find very many Christians who think that shooting up an island of teenagers is a very good idea...

And there, my dear, you have the difference between atheists and Christians.

It makes you a psychopath.

The reason John Gray doesn't qualify as a militant atheist is that he knows what he is talking about.

So does Dawkins when he sticks to biology.

Writing a book does not make one an atheist....nice try.

Shooting people does not make one a Christian....nice try again.

a Fundamentalist christian

The pen is mightier than the sword