Militant Atheism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some have even applied it to themselves though:

The League of Militant Atheists[1] (Russian: Союз воинствующих безбожниковSoyuz voinstvuyushchikh bezbozhnikov); Society of the Godless(Общество безбожников Obshchestvo bezbozhnikov); Union of the Godless (Союз безбожников Soyuz bezbozhnikov), was an atheistic and antireligious organization of workers and intelligentsia that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Soviet Communist Party from 1925 to 1947.[2]
...

"There can be no doubt that the fact that the new state of the USSR led by the communist party, with a program permeated by the spirit of militant atheism, gives the reason why this state is successfully surmounting the great difficulties that stand in its way - that neither "heavenly powers" nor the exhortations of all the priests in all the world can prevent its attaining its aims it has set itself"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

According to your Wikipedia article, that group did engage in violence:

Under the slogan, "the Storming of Heaven," the League of Militant Atheists pressed for "resolute action against religious peasants" leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, "over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag."

I do agree that, in contemporary usage, it is a bit hyperbolic and carries unnecessary connotations due to religious militants who are actually violent.

I agree. I'd go so far as to call it bigoted. It implies that an atheist who dares to suggest in public that it might not be good to be religious is on par with James Kopp or the Lord's Resistance Army.

A term like evangelical atheists would probably be better.

... but not ideal or accurate.

What about "unapologetic atheist"? That seems to me to be a pretty accurate description of what's going on: the people who are labelled "militant atheists" or "evangelical atheists" by theists are just the atheists who decide not to treat their atheism as something shameful that needs to be hidden from polite company.

 

[Augustus]

but not ideal or accurate.

What about "unapologetic atheist"? That seems to me to be a pretty accurate description of what's going on: the people who are labelled "militant atheists" or "evangelical atheists" by theists are just the atheists who decide not to treat their atheism as something shameful that needs to be hidden from polite company.

What is wrong with evangelical? I think it is a pretty accurate analogy.

They are outspoken in their beliefs, believe those with different views are wrong and must be told so, believe those with different beliefs are harmful to society and must be 'saved' by accepting the ideology of their 'saviours', actively try to 'convert' such misguided people and are very dogmatic in their views regarding religion's role in society.

They are also unapologetic atheists, sure, but so are many people who don't see the need to 'convert' the 'heathens'. Your definition seems to imply that such people are apologetic, rather than people who legitimately disagree with the 'new atheist' ideology. Most atheists are unapologetic, as are most religious people, but most see no need to go out of their way to tell those who disagree with them that they are wrong, stupid or even child abusers as do Dawkins et al.

Saying they are just 'unapologetic' seems a bit euphemistic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is wrong with evangelical? I think it is a pretty accurate analogy.

They are outspoken in their beliefs, believe those with different views are wrong and must be told so, believe those with different beliefs are harmful to society and must be 'saved' by accepting the ideology of their 'saviours', actively try to 'convert' such misguided people and are very dogmatic in their views regarding religion's role in society.

So they think they're right and seek to change the minds of others, and you've made judgements (based on what, I don't know) about their willingness to change their minds. Does this make them "evangelists"?

They are also unapologetic atheists, sure, but so are many people who don't see the need to 'convert' the 'heathens'. Your definition seems to imply that such people are apologetic, rather than people who legitimately disagree with the 'new atheist' ideology. Most atheists are unapologetic, as are most religious people, but most see no need to go out of their way to tell those who disagree with them that they are wrong, stupid or even child abusers as do Dawkins et al.

Do you think that Richard Dawkins has claimed that all religious upbringing is abusive? Anything I've ever read from him has said that he only considers some of it abusive... which is something that even most theists would agree with.

Saying they are just 'unapologetic' seems a bit euphemistic.

It isn't euphemistic; it's just based on what prominent atheists actually say and not the caricatures they're made out to be by some.

 

[Augustus]

So they think they're right and seek to change the minds of others, and you've made judgements (based on what, I don't know) about their willingness to change their minds. Does this make them "evangelists"?

And consider those who disagree with them to be dangerous, stupid and needing to be 'saved' by those with the 'truth'.

Their willingness to change their minds? Christopher Hitchens' neo-con beliefs seemed to survive a pretty considerable amount of evidence. (These belief could certainly be described as militant btw seeing as they relied on forcing 'progress' through violence).

Have heard Dawkins repeatedly use the "For good people to do bad things, it takes religion" trope, which is probably one of the stupidest and irrational beliefs possible as it is refuted by boat loads of very obvious evidence.

"We regularly read demographic projections like, “By the year so-and-so France will be 50 percent Muslim.” Such a forecast can only be based on the assumption that all children born to a Muslim couple are little Muslims who will grow up to raise their own little Muslims in due course. - Dawkins

Here is Dawkins repeating a bigoted anti-immigration trope that is so unfounded in evidence as to be laughable. (He say 'year so and so' but all of these publicised 'projections' have ridiculously short time frames like 50 years)

How do they differ from evangelicals then?

Basically, they have decided that religion is harmful (based on very questionable evidence), and promote ignorant and irrational beliefs based on this (such as the previous examples)

Do you think that Richard Dawkins has claimed that all religious upbringing is abusive? Anything I've ever read from him has said that he only considers some of it abusive... which is something that even most theists would agree with.

"What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse."

(almost all parents bring up children with certain moral 'truths' though, you are never given the choice to disagree that it is good to share with your sister for example)

It isn't euphemistic; it's just based on what prominent atheists actually say and not the caricatures they're made out to be by some.

Well Hitchens supported 'progressive' violence supported by reasoning that was child-like in its naivity, and then blamed 'poor implementation' when it failed rather than admitting he was just wrong (a bit like saying theocracy failed, not because it was fundamentally flawed, but because it 'wasn't implemented properly').

Dawkins mindlessly repeats things that are not only ignorant, but clearly and obviously false, just because they suit his pre-defined ideology.

But perhaps this is just being 'unapologetic' and anyone who says otherwise is 'caricaturing' them...

 

[suncowiam]

Just curious about what it be...

"All that science can only do is to discover the sophistries put in place by God. Apparently, the ultimate goal of atheism is to negate all moral standards and to make humanity a little closer to animals."

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/columns-24021-Atheism+Blind+men+arguing+about+sunset/columns.aspx

LOL

 

[outhouse]

Dawkins mindlessly repeats things that are not only ignorant, but clearly and obviously false, just because they suit his pre-defined ideology.

You have any examples? or is this just rhetoric ?

 

[Augustus]

You have any examples? or is this just rhetoric ?

Yes, there were 2 in my post.

Read it again and tell me why they were neither ignorant nor clearly false.

 

[outhouse]

"We regularly read demographic projections like, “By the year so-and-so France will be 50 percent Muslim.” Such a forecast can only be based on the assumption that all children born to a Muslim couple are little Muslims who will grow up to raise their own little Muslims in due course. - Dawkins

I'm sorry but with muslim parents the odds are almost 100% the children will be muslim. At 10% now and thousands coming into the country yearly, his assessment is more plausible then not.

Your statement is rhetoric here.

Have heard Dawkins repeatedly use the "For good people to do bad things, it takes religion" trope, which is probably one of the stupidest and irrational beliefs possible as it is refuted by boat loads of very obvious evidence.

Problem here is we need the full context of HIS statement, before we can judge it properly for content and context.

Fanaticism and fundamentalism are global problems, many within their own religion murder each other over differences in faith alone.


Look at the willful ignorance of some theist that not only retard humanity, they embarrass it.



Sticking up for academia is not being a militant atheist, it is fighting for reason and logic against religions that embarrass humanity.

 

[Augustus]

The 2 points were 'it takes religion to make a good person do evil things' and 'France will become majority Muslim in the not too distant future' btw. For the second one, the claim is based on nonsense data presented by the far right.

Problem here is we need the full context of HIS statement, before we can judge it properly for content and context.

Here is an example

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/497670763127005184

There are very few contexts in which saying "For good people to do bad things, it takes religion" is not stupid. It is just obviously false, and repeating it when a religious person does something horrific is either ignorant or devious.

Most people killed by other people has been as a result of good people doing bad things. It just takes ideology.

Non religious ideologies have almost certainly killed more than religious ideologies. Of course religion causes evil acts in people who think they are doing good, but so does, nationalism, communism, politics, etc.

I have seen no evidence that Dawkins is aware of this incredibly obvious fact. And if he is then he is devious and deliberately misleading. Many 'new atheists' are certainly ignorant of this obvious truth.

I honestly consider it to be at the level of young earth creationism in its wilful ignorance of evidence, if not worse.

Fanaticism and fundamentalism are global problems, many within their own religion murder each other over differences in faith alone.

Look at the willful ignorance of some theist that not only retard humanity, they embarrass it.

Not a point I'm going to disagree with. Doesn't excuse Dawkins' or Hitchens' ignorance and stoking of bigotry though.

Sticking up for academia is not being a militant atheist, it is fighting for reason and logic against religions that embarrass humanity.

Supporting progressive violence after 9/11 a la Hitchens is though.

Dawkins may be an academic regarding biology, but he is in no way academic when discussing religion. He's a low level polemicist, and probable bigot.

Many new atheists' views regarding religion are anything but 'reasonable and logical', and pointing this out should in no way imply I am making religious apologetics.

 

[outhouse]

. It is just obviously false,

Not in the context he used. Its factual when stated as a question, and talking of religious beheadings.

repeating it when a religious person does something horrific is either ignorant or devious.

No it isn't. face the music and take the criticism.

Religion is not above criticism. Criticism is not militant, it is addressing the negative aspects that need correcting.

 

[outhouse]

Here is an example

You quote mined him out of context.

"For good people to do bad things, it takes religion" (Steven Weinberg). that is STEVENS quote, and Dawkins ask if it is possibly an example

 

[Augustus]

You quote mined him out of context.

"For good people to do bad things, it takes religion" (Steven Weinberg). that is STEVENS quote, and Dawkins ask if it is possibly an example

I quote mined him out of context???

I posted the entirety of his tweet, not numbered 2/7 or 3/9, the entire text. Posting an entire text is about as far from quote mining as it is possible to get. I know he was repeating someone else's quote, as it was acknowledged in the entire text that I posted.

If you would like context: "'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." (Steven Weinberg)

As I stated, this is clearly and obviously false. Good people do evil things for so many reasons.

When you reference this quote with the wording 'COULD this be an example', i.e this is self evident proof that this is true, it is either devious or ignorant. The clear inference is that only religion is capable of causing this behaviour.

It is one potential cause, no doubt, but only one of many. Not acknowledging this is devious or YEC level ignorance.

 

[outhouse]

If you would like context: "'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." (Steven Weinberg)

Thats not Dawkins is my point.

And yes steven is over the top.

 

[Augustus]

Thats not Dawkins is my point.

And yes steven is over the top.

He's clearly endorsing the point. What in the entirety of that text would suggest that he is not? He chose the quote and placed it in context without offering any qualifications.

 

[outhouse]

He's clearly endorsing the point. What in the entirety of that text would suggest that he is not? He chose the quote and placed it in context without offering any qualifications.

I agree with him that religious beheadings are great examples of good people doing just freakin terrible things.


Maybe people could learn the difference between militant, and criticism

 

[Bunyip]

The 2 points were 'it takes religion to make a good person do evil things' and 'France will become majority Muslim in the not too distant future' btw. For the second one, the claim is based on nonsense data presented by the far right.



Here is an example

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/497670763127005184

There are very few contexts in which saying "For good people to do bad things, it takes religion" is not stupid. It is just obviously false, and repeating it when a religious person does something horrific is either ignorant or devious.

Most people killed by other people has been as a result of good people doing bad things. It just takes ideology.

Non religious ideologies have almost certainly killed more than religious ideologies. Of course religion causes evil acts in people who think they are doing good, but so does, nationalism, communism, politics, etc.

I have seen no evidence that Dawkins is aware of this incredibly obvious fact. And if he is then he is devious and deliberately misleading. Many 'new atheists' are certainly ignorant of this obvious truth.

I honestly consider it to be at the level of young earth creationism in its wilful ignorance of evidence, if not worse.



Not a point I'm going to disagree with. Doesn't excuse Dawkins' or Hitchens' ignorance and stoking of bigotry though.



Supporting progressive violence after 9/11 a la Hitchens is though.

Dawkins may be an academic regarding biology, but he is in no way academic when discussing religion. He's a low level polemicist, and probable bigot.

Many new atheists' views regarding religion are anything but 'reasonable and logical', and pointing this out should in no way imply I am making religious apologetics.

Frankly interpreting that as 'supporting progressive violence' is completely ridiculous and painfully disingenuous. Demonising a man like that to make a poinr is a low tactic indeed.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Ultimately perhaps the 'atheists' need not be part of any clan or group, but can actually graduate into being true individuals. That way they can't be said to have a fanatical fringe or to be some kind of subset of people with such and such moral dogmas. Perhaps a true graduation from religion doesn't include uniform codes of how to human. True atheists may have a possibility of escaping more than just a belief in god in such an instance, if we are under the assumption that they take upon themselves the process of dissolving so many assumptions that they had - in order to find themselves with a myriad of belief options, free and ready for the interchangeability of true customization and selection.

 

[Augustus]

Frankly interpreting that as 'supporting progressive violence' is completely ridiculous and painfully disingenuous. Demonising a man like that to make a poinr is a low tactic indeed.

That related to Hitchens, who if you remember, was a big cheerleader for the Iraq war. Is it a low tactic to refer to war as violence now?

I agree with him that religious beheadings are great examples of good people doing just freakin terrible things.


Maybe people could learn the difference between militant, and criticism

I'd say it was bad people doing bad things, but if we take it as the idea the idea that 'people can do bad things and still consider themselves good/be seen to be good by other people'...

Religion can make good people do bad things, that is fairly uncontroversial.

Only religion can make good people do bad things is nonsense. 'Progress' can make good people do evil things. Love can make good people do evil things. Being part of a crowd can make good people do evil things. The quest for scientific knowledge can make good people do evil things. Bureaucracy can make good people do bad things. Money, capitalism, socialism, etc. etc.

Amongst new atheists religion is given this special capacity to make people do evil, but they seem to do this purely on faith and seemingly in spite of plenty of evidence against it.

Just because he is a scientist, doesn't make him scientific in regard to many of the topics he discusses about which he often seems both ignorant and irrational.

 

[Bunyip]

That related to Hitchens, who if you remember, was a big cheerleader for the Iraq war. Is it a low tactic to refer to war as violence now?

Dawkins buddy, not Hitchens.

I'd say it was bad people doing bad things, but if we take it as the idea the idea that 'people can do bad things and still consider themselves good/be seen to be good by other people'...

Religion can make good people do bad things, that is fairly uncontroversial.

Only religion can make good people do bad things is nonsense. 'Progress' can make good people do evil things. Love can make good people do evil things. Being part of a crowd can make good people do evil things. The quest for scientific knowledge can make good people do evil things. Bureaucracy can make good people do bad things. Money, capitalism, socialism, etc. etc.

Amongst new atheists religion is given this special capacity to make people do evil, but they seem to do this purely on faith and seemingly in spite of plenty of evidence against it.

Just because he is a scientist, doesn't make him scientific in regard to many of the topics he discusses about which he often seems both ignorant and irrational.

 

[Augustus]

Dawkins buddy, not Hitchens.

Bizarre.

What I said was "Supporting progressive violence after 9/11 a la Hitchens is though."

Do you agree Hitchens was a vocal supporter of progressive violence, 'bombing people into the future'?