An Atheist Martyr?

[cadbrowser]

Atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Martyr - a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.

It seems to me that the term Atheist Martyr would be considered an oxymoron. I think that an atheist can be segregated against, discriminated agaisnt, persecuted, or even murdered.

I want to get varying opinions of this thought process. The reason I am asking is because of a Christian Missionary friend of mine who associates some atheist as religious (because of their passion), to which I told her she was projecting. When I asked if she considered certain passionate Vegans the same way (or Trekkies, or members of the LGBT comunity), she went on a tirade about atheist being martyred and discriminated agaisnt in an attempt to provide substance to her thought process.

Another thought came to mind. Would an atheist (say, hypothetically, during the Spanish Inquisition) choose to lie rather than die or be tortured? I, personally, would be inclined to say yes, simply because I find that Atheist tend to value life in a more physical way than someone with religious convictions.

Any other thoughts?

EDIT: Forgot to finish a sentence.

[Ahriman238]

By definition, a martyr is someone who dies for his belief or cause.

I don't personally know anyone who would die for their atheism, but I can't say I know anyone who feels particularly up to dying for their religion either. Still, I would consider such incidents as martyrdom.

[Spekio]

That depends, for people are different.


We have this recent example that yes, some would sacrifice themselves for the right to believe (or not) even in face of violence.Here.

On the other hand,I am ashamed to say that I sometimes hid my atheism due to the religious majority of my country, and fear of losing business or conections.

[cadbrowser]

Ahriman238, I am under the impression that "dying for one's cause" is more of a modern generic definition attributed to martyr, much like "theory" has come to mean a few different things today. I posted the definition for which the context is intended. Not trying to be obtuse here.

Speiko, unfortunately that site is blocked here at work, so I'll have to check it out when I get home. Why are you ashamed? Humans often adapt naturally to their environment.

[Ahriman238]

Martyr (from the Greek for "witness") 1.) a person who willingly suffers death for witnessing for or refusing to renounce his religious beliefs. 2.) a person who sacrifices his life, or something of great value, for principle. -Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 1979 edition.

You could argue, I suppose that as recently as a century ago people would not associate the word with anything but religious (and specifically, Christian) martyrs, but what would be the point? Many words had radically different meanings at various points throughout time, what context is this in if not the general understanding of the last 30+ years?

[cadbrowser]

Fair enough. I can honestly say that #2 is completely foreign to me as I've only heard it referenced like #1. Of course that's not your fault, it's mine for not making sure.

Let me ask this then. In the context for which that Missionary Christian was implying, would you agree that #1 would fit better? Keep in mind she was relating Atheism = religion.

[Ahriman238]

I'm... increasingly uncertain I understand what the subject of conversation is.

As I understand, you asked if an atheist can be a martyr or if your friend was projecting her worldview. Fair enough. My answer is yes, there can be atheist martyrs, going by Webster and my own understanding of the phrase. HOWEVER, not everyone at all times will agree with myself and the Dictionary, whether they refuse to honor the heathen with the title of martyr or object to a historically religious label being applied to them, as people who do not accept religion.

To me, a martyr is someone who dies for what they believe in, full stop. Others might argue it's more nuanced than that. Then I'd tell those people they're probably over-thinking it.

Would the first definition better fit someone dying for their right to not believe in a god? I'd say you're splitting hairs and either definition works fine. Atheism is funny like that, one can argue that denying God still involves having beliefs and an opinion about a God, and thus believing after a fashion. I seem to remember a Hindi parable about a man who reminds himself every moment of every day that there are no gods, and receives an honored place in the afterlife because he spent his entire life thinking about the divine.

[cadbrowser]

No no, you understood perfectly. It seems I am spliting hairs then in your opinion.

HOWEVER, not everyone at all times will agree with myself and the Dictionary, whether they refuse to honor the heathen with the title of martyr or object to a historically religious label being applied to them, as people who do not accept religion.

I guess a counter question to her would be if she'd consider the possibility of a Satanist Martyr. Or a Neo-Nazi Martyr. Based on your earlier understanding then you'd say yes to those as well I assume.

Atheism is funny like that, one can argue that denying God still involves having beliefs and an opinion about a God, and thus believing after a fashion.

This is pretty much what I'm arguing against with her. Well, not the opinon part, but the belief (unless opinion "somehow" is a belief). Just seems like religious projection similar to them accusing scientist of having a dogma when it comes to the Scientific Method. Which just doesn't seem rational to me.

LOL, that is a funny Hindi parable.

For me, as an atheist, I personally hold the position that there isn't any evidence that supports the concept of anything beyond nature. Only when a religious (typically Christian) decides to interject their God in my face then I'll go on the defensive.

[Spekio]

Spekio, unfortunately that site is blocked here at work, so I'll have to check it out when I get home. Why are you ashamed? Humans often adapt naturally to their environment.

Because religion is toxic. And atheists here are just starting to find their voice, so I'm trying to be more open, showing people it is okay not to believe.

[cadbrowser]

I do agree that there are religions that are toxic, some horrifically so.

Well, I encourage you to keep doing what you do, continue to find your own voice and help those that need an ear so they can find their own voice as well.

[Covenant]

It really depends on which definitions you use for the several terms being used. Since I always write too much, I apologize.

She defines atheism as a religion, and martyrdom as the sacrifice of a religious person for their beliefs, generically against some force that wants them to renounce said beliefs. So by her definition then, yes, there can be an atheist martyr.

By your definition there wouldn't be, since you're not defining atheism as a religion and defining martyrdom within a religious context still.

If you want to go one step further and use a more colloquial definition of martyrdom, to include other ideologies outside of a religious one, then again you can have an atheist martyr. You could also have a martyr to free speech, a martyr to hamburger consumption, or whatever else. The important thing isn't the martyr, but the way in which they're persecuted. Someone isn't martyred until their opposition goes crazy apeshit bonkers on them and reveals themselves to be madmen, usually in the act of taking the martyr's life themselves in some terrible way. Monks who set themselves on fire haven't been martyred, but they are making a very strong protest, by my definition.

The larger question is, could someone be atheistic and let themselves be crucified, literally or figuratively, for their belief? It is certainly possible, as anything is possible. Someone who believes in the non-existence of a given deity is likely to resist efforts to make that deity enforced upon them, but that's nothing new. People often die because they reject the deification of certain mythological figures, or they reject a nuance of it. When we think about martyrdom in the Western Anglo-European tradition we often think of Catholic and Protestant martyrs who died because members of the same generic theistic faith (belief in the judeo-christian god and the messianic Christ figure) could not agree on some matters of secondary importance. Sure, those were big matters at the time, but I bring it up because even differing on simple matters (like if or if not you're allowed to own a Bible in your own language) would see people going to the pyre with pride and conviction.

Atheists might find the entire affair ridiculous, especially since it may be exchanging one worthless superstition for another, but I think a good number of us would certainly stand up if there was some secondary issue of import. Just like with the martyrs I mentioned above, if something else were at stake besides just which hat I need to wear at public gatherings, I might get damned furious. If someone rolled in and said I had to tithe to the Cult of Odin, I would be really upset. If someone said I needed to attend Cult of Odin ceremonies, fight in their name, and burn all the science textbooks that say that the Earth is more than 8000 years old (and not created by Odin from the rotting carcass of Great Ymir) then yeah, I might get so angry that I tell them to shove it and when they ask me to recant I might just tell them to piss off.

Which might end up getting me martyred, but I'm an ornery sort.

The key here is giving the non-theist something to get upset about. They may not get martyred for atheism itself, it may be for science or for freedom or for equal rights or for peace. Atheism doesn't inform you about what to DO with yourself, it just removes an impulse to make decisions based on an outside influence. That's always been the issue with calling atheism a religion, since it has no practices or customs or tenants of faith.

Let's look at the dictionary again, just as a starting point. They define a religion as the belief in a god or in a group of gods, an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods, or an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.

Clearly atheism fails on the first condition, as well as on the second condition, though the third applies to something so wide that it strains a bit. I like the version that google gives of that clause: "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."

Important here is 'supreme importance,' not just very important. Lots of things are very important to people, like baseball. I don't think baseball is my father's religion. I don't think my father's bulldog is my father's religion either, but he'd probably risk injury to save her if she was being attacked by another animal. But supreme importance is good, especially since there are religions that don't have gods but they do have issues of major importance, such as ancestor worship or animistic spirits of the world or a search for enlightenment. Restricting it to gods or God just ignores that.

So, do atheists have an issue of supreme importance? They really don't. Especially not in a general fashion broad enough encompass us. Science doesn't count, since not only aren't all atheists supremely interested in science (they may just enjoy it or be ennobled by it, the way religious scholars were back when they invented much of known science) and a non-belief isn't a supreme importance. I don't wake up every day and praise the Nothing that I have free will, and go off to do My Will and praise be to a lack of needing praise.

The closest you could get is a hypothetical "some day" religion of human enlightenment seeking to find a place for humanity in the universe by taking the perpetual "next step" towards a perfectly ethical, equitable, free and boundless human experience. That's not yet though. That's a bit of a "Zeroth Law" religion for you there. You could probably call that kind of meta-altruism a religion.

[cadbrowser]

The larger question is, could someone be atheistic and let themselves be crucified, literally or figuratively, for their belief?

snip

Atheists might find the entire affair ridiculous, especially since it may be exchanging one worthless superstition for another, but I think a good number of us would certainly stand up if there was some secondary issue of import.

If there was a secondary issue of importance or a "belief" that this atheist was murdered over, it still wouldn't be an atheist martyr. They would be a martyr for the belief they were defending, the fact that they were athiest is irrelevant.

That's always been the issue with calling atheism a religion, since it has no practices or customs or tenants of faith.

I couldn't disagree more. The issue with call athiesm a religion is simply it is not. Religion requires belief...dogma. Atheism is disbelief or the lack of belief. It is a non-sequitir.

If Atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

They may not get martyred for atheism itself...

Yes, this I agree with; and that is kinda my whole point.

Clearly atheism fails on the first condition, as well as on the second condition, though the third applies to something so wide that it strains a bit. I like the version that google gives of that clause: "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."

I absolutely abhore that google clause. I'm not sure that your follow up commentary convinces me that the word 'supreme' couldn't be dumbed down either. I call bullshit. That definition slowly degrades the word to fit whatever haphazard idea that anyone could come up with.

Someone could invariably consider Drinking a religion. Especially if they can dumb down 'supreme importance' by defining the actions of the drunk to himself (loosing wife to alcohol, job, etc etc...).

[Covenant]

I think you're approaching my commentary from a strangely combative angle, and now I'm forced to defend myself against accusations of trying to cast my fellow non-believers as Religious. Even if the board at large knows that not to be so, I wouldn't want you to think so.

I'm not calling atheism a religion, and I'm also an atheist, so I'm not sure if you're trying to argue with me or are just really really passionate about some of these issues of semantics. I said that the lack of practices, customs and tenants of faith is the "big issue" with the whole idea of Atheism Is A Religion topics... because I reject the idea that a vague "issue of importance" qualifies for religion for the same reason you do.

But you need a clause like that somewhere (and it should specifically refer to a "Superior or Divine Importance" type of thing) so that religious groups that believe in ancestor spirits, or a path to immortal enlightenment, or space aliens that will transform us into energy beings can be properly referred to as religions when they act and behave like them in all other ways.

Animistic religions or things like Buddhism still do the whole ritual observances and search for truths, wisdom, and so on from a non-material existence thing. Atheism doesn't apply, so we're not a religion and we're not religious in our disbelief. Bam!

I liked google's mention of a "Supreme Importance" because it makes it sound, as it should, that it has to apply to something that you approach as greater than our existence on Earth. If you don't call it "Supreme" and call it "something you're really passionate about," like some definitions do, drinking and baseball become the biggest Religions in America. Neither of us like that definition, it is too broad and too vague to apply. I also think it needs to include a search for hidden meanings beyond the realm of the observed and observable. If people just like to sit around and sing songs, that's not religious, even if they do it with ritual observance. They might be crazy (or just at a really good concert) but I don't think it becomes religious just because it has become obsessive. The Superbowl is a ritual observance that beats out a hell of a lot of other religious activities, and I reject any definition that makes football a religion.

So!

I hope you understand that I'm really not approaching this from a conflicting view, just a slightly different view that runs mostly parallel to your own. My only real deviation is that I seem to appreciate those clauses that keep non-theistic religions squarely into the religion camp, and that I think someone could die on the principle of a rejection of faith. If you use the broad definition of martyrdom, then it applies. If I became exceptionally popular as an advocate for non-religious life, and some kind of deranged madman wanted to film me admitting I was a fraud and actually believed in His Lord and Savior The Football, I'm fairly certain I would tell him to piss up a rope before I admit to being Saved By The Pigskin.

Now, you might think I'm just stubborn, or a martyr to common sense, or that it is a tragic loss but not martyrdom because by your preferred definition a martyr is strictly someone who is doing it for a religious faith... but I think in the more generic nomenclature, it works. It may be imprecise, but it works. I cannot reject the idea of an atheist martyr if I can accept the idea of a martyr for civil rights. I wouldn't advocate using the term though, personally. If, in the future, I ever have an opportunity to get axed in such a ridiculous circumstance, among my dying words will be "Don't call me a matyr, that sounds too stinking religious."

[cadbrowser]

I'm not calling atheism a religion, and I'm also an atheist, so I'm not sure if you're trying to argue with me or are just really really passionate about some of these issues of semantics.

My sincere apologies Covenant. I think I may have mis-understood your position and thought you were arguing for the posibility of atheism being a religion due to semantics.

I think that maybe my whole issue with the sematics part of it is that some words over time have taken on very different meanings than they once did. IMHO, 200 years ago, nobody would've ever equated any type of "sport" as a religion. In fact even the word atheist was different. You could be accused of being an atheist if you didn't believe a specific way. You could've been protestant, but a catholic would've considered you an atheist. Nowadays, that isn't so.

So, people know this and use this to play these semantic battles so that they can justify bastardizing any word to fit their own interpretation to prove a point.

Now, you might think I'm just stubborn, or a martyr to common sense, or that it is a tragic loss but not martyrdom because by your preferred definition a martyr is strictly someone who is doing it for a religious faith... but I think in the more generic nomenclature, it works. It may be imprecise, but it works. I cannot reject the idea of an atheist martyr if I can accept the idea of a martyr for civil rights. I wouldn't advocate using the term though, personally. If, in the future, I ever have an opportunity to get axed in such a ridiculous circumstance, among my dying words will be "Don't call me a matyr, that sounds too stinking religious."

That last line was priceless. I think I'll just have to be content to agree with you on principle. I admit, I don't like it but I don't see any other option here at this juncture. Just to clarify, my preferred definition of martyr is a person who is willing to die for their religious beliefs. As an atheist, i would never be willing to die, life is too important.

[LaCroix]

You could be accused of being an atheist if you didn't believe a specific way. You could've been protestant, but a catholic would've considered you an atheist.

Actually, the word would be "heretic" - believing in a wrong version of your own belief, or "heathen", if you weren't even a Christian. Atheists would be covered by the latter term, although the concept of simply not believing in any "higher power" was even harder to understand, back then. (Although some roman and greek quotes imply that some prominent people were actual atheists in private and only holding up a public image.)

[cadbrowser]

You could be accused of being an atheist if you didn't believe a specific way. You could've been protestant, but a catholic would've considered you an atheist.

Actually, the word would be "heretic" - believing in a wrong version of your own belief, or "heathen", if you weren't even a Christian. Atheists would be covered by the latter term, although the concept of simply not believing in any "higher power" was even harder to understand, back then. (Although some roman and greek quotes imply that some prominent people were actual atheists in private and only holding up a public image.)

I beg to differ:

During the Early modern period, the term "atheist" was used as an insult and applied to a broad range of people, including those who held opposing theological beliefs, as well as suicides, immoral or self-indulgent people, and even opponents of the belief in witchcraft.

Emphasis mine.

[LaCroix]

That's the first time I ever heard the term atheist used in that context. I would think this was a rare occasion.

Heretic is the general accepted term for people adhering to different variations of a belief.
"Apostasy" would be interchangeable with "Atheism".

[cadbrowser]

Trust me, I'd only read about that earlier this week. I was just as surprised as you are. It seems tho that the way the author (that was referenced in the wiki article "#8") puts it, it was more commonplace than you'd think.

I wasn't disagreeing with your use of Heritic either; just so we're clear there. I just wanted to post evidence for my claim since you posted a correction.

Can you give me an example or source for the "Apostasy interchangeable with Atheism"? I'm not sure how that would follow.

Thanks.

[LaCroix]

Well, it certainly is a bit higher on the "religious offense scale" to call someone an atheist instead of a run-of-the-mill heretic, although the quote you provided makes me believe that people probably became confused with the proper names of religious crimes and used atheism as a general category, instead.

Apostacy in the religious sense is the renunciation of a religious faith. Apostacy, itself, does not require to take up a new faith, just the rejection of the faith you belonged to, i.e. deconversion. If you take up a new belief (conversion), it makes you a convert, but you still stay an apostate, too, in the eyes of your old belief.

And since all children were raised in their parent's belief, almost all atheists did have to apostate at some point. So unless you were raised as an atheist (which is a rare occurrence even to this day), becoming one makes you an apostate, as well.

[cadbrowser]

Well, it certainly is a bit higher on the "religious offense scale" to call someone an atheist instead of a run-of-the-mill heretic, although the quote you provided makes me believe that people probably became confused with the proper names of religious crimes and used atheism as a general category, instead.

It doesn't appear to me as a confusion, but more of a bigger "dig" agaisnt that person. An ultimate drag through of shame and muck if you will. At least that is what I'm reading into it. Kind of like calling a woman a cunt vs bitch. Both are bad, but one (at least in my third-party experience) is intolerable and will definately result in an immediate lashing out, if not violent reaction!

Thank you for that well expalined usage of apostacy, I see where you are comming from now.