• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Militant Atheism

Nakosis

Non-Dual Physicalist
Premium Member
Just curious about what it be...

news_batheists.jpg


"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
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Do you think Richard Dawkins is comparable to the murderer below or are the standards for militancy the same for atheists as they are for theists?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Atheism has no doctrine nor dogma. So your blame is misplaced. You are creating a strawman to knock down, nothing more. These people are jerks that happen to be atheists or murders that happen to be atheists. Neither is due to atheism itself.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Atheism has no doctrine nor dogma. So your blame is misplaced. You are creating a strawman to knock down, nothing more. These people are jerks that happen to be atheists or murders that happen to be atheists. Neither is due to atheism itself.

So long as we can remember the same is true of theism, religion, and irreligion, I'll be happy.

I'd be quite happy if we quit trying to use the behaviors of individuals as excuses to hate entire groups of people in general, whether we're talking race, sex, religion, politics, whatever. It's called bigotry, and it's ugly.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
So long as we can remember the same is true of theism, religion, and irreligion, I'll be happy.

Many religions have dogma and doctrine. Religions often have texts aka scripture while atheism does not. You point has no merit in this case

I'd be quite happy if we quit trying to use the behaviors of individuals as excuses to hate entire groups of people in general, whether we're talking race, sex, religion, politics, whatever. It's called bigotry, and it's ugly.

Sure I can agree with that.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I like to respond but what about Militant Atheism are we discussing/debating?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Many religions have dogma and doctrine. Religions often have texts aka scripture while atheism does not. You point has no merit in this case

It does when you consider that there is no such thing as a dogmatic religion that universally requires its members to go out and commit crimes and acts of violence. That, and atheism functions analogously to a religion for at least some atheists, so... yeah.
 

Nakosis

Non-Dual Physicalist
Premium Member
I like to respond but what about Militant Atheism are we discussing/debating?

I'm curious if a case can be made for the existence of the militant atheist. Pretty much the Chapel Hill murder is what the anti-atheist crowd is jumping on. There's not really A lot else I'd call militant unless I'd bring up Stalin.

So is it fair to see "Militant Atheism" as this?

images


Or this?

images


I'd prefer to make fun of the idea, but maybe I'm being insensitive to some reality I'm not aware of.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
It does when you consider that there is no such thing as a dogmatic religion that universally requires its members to go out and commit crimes and acts of violence. That, and atheism functions analogously to a religion for at least some atheists, so... yeah.

Never said there was a universal religion which required this. My point was there is a basis of justification for horrible acts found within many religions because God(s) said it was alright. It is this lack of moral accountability which blinds people into thinking immoral acts are good if commanded by a deity. It is this belief which is dangerous when expressed by individuals in actions.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
So long as we can remember the same is true of theism, religion, and irreligion, I'll be happy.

Agreed.

I'd be quite happy if we quit trying to use the behaviors of individuals as excuses to hate entire groups of people in general, whether we're talking race, sex, religion, politics, whatever. It's called bigotry, and it's ugly.

While quite lovely. It only gives groups of like minded individuals a free pass for any negative aspect said group gets away with. Theist or atheist

If group promotes said behavior it is a group error, not an individual one.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Just curious about what it be...

I think maybe you don't understand the difference between anti theism, and atheism.

I think you confuse the two, why I have no idea what your motive is, after being here so long and knowing better. I'm curious what your excuse is?
 

Nakosis

Non-Dual Physicalist
Premium Member
Atheism has no doctrine nor dogma. So your blame is misplaced. You are creating a strawman to knock down, nothing more. These people are jerks that happen to be atheists or murders that happen to be atheists. Neither is due to atheism itself.

Unfortunately, I can't mount a serious argument against you, there's just really not much to support it. I seriously tried and thought I'd find more.

There is the potential for individuals to violently attack religion because of their own hatred but the use of reason to attack religion, can that be called militant?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
There is the potential for individuals to violently attack religion because of their own hatred but the use of reason to attack religion, can that be called militant?

So do we call all KKK under the title theist????


Your argument is against anti theist, NOT atheist. Period.


What's up with you? no trouble in 5 years, are you talking vacation?
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member

§ 89. Why religion and communism are incompatible
'Religion is the opium of the people,' said Karl Marx. It is the task of the Communist Party to make this truth comprehensible to the widest possible circles of the labouring masses. It is the task of the party to impress firmly upon the minds of the workers, even upon the most backward, that religion has been in the past and still is today one of the most powerful means at the disposal of the oppressors for the maintenance of inequality, exploitation, and slavish obedience on the part of the toilers.

Many weak-kneed communists reason as follows: 'Religion does not prevent my being a communist. I believe both in God and in communism. My faith in God does not hinder me from fighting for the cause of the proletarian revolution.'

This train of thought is radically false. Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.

Every communist must regard social phenomena (the relationships between human beings, revolutions, wars, etc.) as processes which occur in accordance with definite laws. The laws of social development have been fully established by scientific communism on the basis of the theory of historical materialism which we owe to our great teachers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This theory explains that social development is not brought about by any kind of supernatural forces. Nay more. The same theory has demonstrated that the very idea of God and of supernatural powers arises at a definite stage in human history, and at another definite stage begins to disappear as a childish notion which finds no confirmation in practical life and in the struggle between man and nature. But it is profitable to the predatory class to maintain the ignorance of the people and to maintain the people's childish belief in miracles (the key to the riddle really lies in the exploiters' pockets), and this is why religious prejudices are so tenacious, and why they confuse the minds even of persons who are in other respects able.

The general happenings throughout nature are, moreover, in no wise dependent upon supernatural causes. Man has been extremely successful in the struggle with nature. He influences nature in his own interests, and controls natural forces, achieving these conquests, not thanks to his faith in God and in divine assistance, but in spite of this faith. He achieves his conquests thanks to the fact that in practical life and in all serious matters he invariably conducts himself as an atheist. Scientific communism, in its judgements concerning natural phenomena, is guided by the data of the natural sciences, which are in irreconcilable conflict with all religious imaginings.

In practice, no less than in theory, communism is incompatible with religious faith. The tactic of the Communist Party prescribes for the members of the party definite lines of conduct. The moral code of every religion in like manner prescribes for the faithful some definite line of conduct. For example, the Christian code runs: 'Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' In most cases there is an irreconcilable conflict between the principles of communist tactics and the commandments of religion. A communist who rejects the commandments of religion and acts in accordance with the directions of the party, ceases to be one of the faithful. On the other hand, one who, while calling himself a communist, continues to cling to his religious faith, one who in the name of religious commandments infringes the prescriptions of the party, ceases thereby to be a communist.

The struggle with religion has two sides, and every communist must distinguish clearly between them. On the one hand we have the struggle with the church, as a special organization existing for religious propaganda, materially interested in the maintenance of popular ignorance and religious enslavement. On the other hand we have the struggle with the widely diffused and deeply ingrained prejudices of the majority of the working population.

(The ABC of Communism, 1920: https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/11.htm#089)
 

Nakosis

Non-Dual Physicalist
Premium Member
I think maybe you don't understand the difference between anti theism, and atheism.

I think you confuse the two, why I have no idea what your motive is, after being here so long and knowing better. I'm curious what your excuse is?

To find out what people mean by militant atheism. I could provide a number of references but mostly it boils down to being used to mean atheists who use reason, logic and the court system to attack religion.

I could of course found this out myself but I was hoping some religious folks would chime in to give their perspective.
 

AnnaCzereda

Active Member
From the article OP linked to:

To be consistent with atheism is to deny the existence of any moral standard, but it shocks me to find that in real life atheists adopt the theistic worldview if someone steals from them. Since their ultimate goal is to be liberated I wonder why an atheist would find the idea of marrying an animal repulsive.

This is just dumb. The morals are a social and cultural thing so it's obvious that even non-religious people uphold them because they are rooted in their own culture and influenced by the society they were brought up in and live in. Some moral standards have even the biological background and stem from evolution. Why do you think incest is a taboo?

On the whole, militant Atheists are not much different from militant Christians. I wonder what these two groups would do without each other.
 
Top