Militant Atheism

[Augustus]

You might want to look up the definition of religion. You will find your in error again, and that atheist do not belong to any religion.

It is quite ironic that as part of a series of posts that accused me of quote mining, misattribution and misrepresentation you accuse me of saying atheism is a religion by stopping mid-sentence to completely change what I said. You stopped at "Amongst new atheists religion", whereas I said "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".

(It was missing a comma, but this hardly rendered it an esoteric mystery.)

First you said/implied Dawkins said this and were wrong.

For someone to support an idea, it does not have to be their original thought. When we repeat the idea in a way that implies or states endorsement and agreement, it is not wrong to attribute belief in, or statement of, the idea to both the original author and the person who restated it. You seem to be implying that unless you have a truly original idea, it can be in no way associated with you even if you publicly repeat it.

Dawkins did 'say' it, that is why you could read Dawkins 'saying' it, which I linked to. He clearly endorsed the idea, which, I think, is a very stupid one for the reasons I stated. You can disagree with my interpretation of the comment, but when there is clear evidence of Dawkins 'saying' it, I don't understand your hostility to the idea that Dawkins 'said' it.

In my opinion, the comment clearly understates the wealth of potential causes for good people to do bad things.

The problem with new atheists is they use this cartoonish idea of religion to reach the conclusion that 'religion is bad, so no religion is better'. If they appreciated the wealth of potential causes for human evil, then they would have to accept the statement 'religion may be bad, but no religion can be worse'. From my experience, they do not due to their ignorance and irrationality.

In context it is generalized as the evils and dangers of fanaticism and fundamentalism that twist good people into a false reality.

Dangers that are in no way limited to religion. The quote gives the impression that the author doesn't understand this or at least seriously underestimates how many other things can cause similar behaviour.

It is hard to be a new atheist if you accept that your evangelical support of atheism may not improve the world, but lead to something worse. So they pretend that this is not a reasonable possibility, and make stupid comments like the one in question.

All irrationality is an insult to human dignity.

Human dignity only comes from irrationality.

If religion is irrational, then so are your values. I know mine certainly are.

Humans are fundamentally irrational, how can something fundamental to human nature be an insult to human dignity?

 

[Shad]

Then you should be able to provide a link for where you got the idea.

I can not link it since I did not go to a source before posting the phrase. It was one I have used off and on for a while now. Beside input the words in Google and you will find people have been using it or a form of it for at least 5 years.

Otherwise, we'll just assume you made it up out of whole cloth. And atheists didn't come up with the label "new atheism" either.

Assume away and do not bother to research it yourself. I am sure you will convince everyone of how well thought out your point is /sarcasm A number of atheist besides myself have used the term at times for the same reason as I have.

Atheism has always been here, it isn't new. The only thing that is new is the fact that theists can no longer shut atheists up with threats or violence or legal prosecution. The religious got far too comfortable being in control by default, now that they can't hide behind the law, now that they can't threaten people to shut them up, they can't force them out of their communities, they can't get them fired from their jobs, they can't out-and-out murder them, now the religious are looking like the fools they are because they can't actually demonstrate their claims, but instead of acknowledging the truth, that religion is an irrational belief, you're trying to point fingers at atheists and pretend that we're mean because we don't let you be in charge.

Never said it was new completely. You didn't bother reading my post and made assumptions. Like I said it is separation of philosophical view points from popular figures such a Hitchens or Harris that have little in the way of arguments against theism but have arguments against religions, usually bad ones.

You also show your amazing research skill in thinking I am a theist, I am not. Its not like you can not Google the religion label next to my name....

Try again.

Try some basic research before you go off on a rant. You will avoid embarrassing yourself

 

[Shad]

Pop-culture atheism. That's a way of putting it. I sometimes call it vogue atheism. It's fashionable and in style in the younger crowd to be atheist today. Seen it in my kids and their friends. Unfortunately, they rarely try to study up on the finer details or discussions, and then when they get into debate... well, it gets very heated, but no cigars.

Hence why people attempt to use this lack of definition then make claims regarding babies or provide 0 arguments for their position. More so many atheists make claims that as a group atheist are more intelligent than theists yet many of these same people use flawed arguments for their views. So we have a "new" generation of atheists that know less about atheism than many theist know about their religion and theism. Like I said before it is the dumbing down of atheism for the ignorant masses. Just like religion a phase of groupthink, due to ignorance, is emerging in which many people mention Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris as figures of importance and parrot what they say as if it is meaningful. This groupthink is probably why I am accused of being a theist if I disagree with members of the "new" generation.

You didn't. Some search results showing this:

https://www.facebook.com/popcultureatheist

And I found a couple of sites using the term "pop atheist" (which is a short form of pop-culture). This one was interesting:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/pop-atheism-vs-academic-atheism/28753


+1

It is amusing to see my denial of creating the idea is some how translated into me having created the idea. Nevermind that a quick Google search will show the idea dates back at least 5 years, probably more as I only looked over 1 search result page. So not only is there a break in logical, that I must prove I did not create the phrase, but followed by the complete unwillingness for one to do their own research. And people wonder why I wish to distance myself from this ilk when they post comments such as that...

True. And I never learned to avoid those myself. I have an addiction to these discussions. It's sad really. And you're right, the knee-jerk reaction just prevents people from actually reading or trying to understand what is being said. I'm starting to have serious doubts that online forums ever really provide anyone with much insights or learning. It's more of just getting a hit of the "drug" and no one ever change.

I never thought forums would change anyone's opinion. In order to changes one's opinions they must be open to being wrong. Few holding any position will do so until blatantly proven wrong, but some will still be holdouts anyways. This is true of humanity not just theism, atheism, republican, etc. For me these discussions keep me sharp as my interactive work is just lecturing from texts to students and written reports, neither is an environment for any form of dialogue.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hence why people attempt to use this lack of definition then make claims regarding babies or provide 0 arguments for their position. More so many atheists make claims that as a group atheist are more intelligent than theists yet many of these same people use flawed arguments for their views. So we have a "new" generation of atheists that know less about atheism than many theist know about their religion and theism. Like I said before it is the dumbing down of atheism for the ignorant masses. Just like religion a phase of groupthink, due to ignorance, is emerging in which many people mention Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris as figures of importance and parrot what they say as if it is meaningful. This groupthink is probably why I am accused of being a theist if I disagree with members of the "new" generation.

Right on. Agree on every point.

This new definition is allowing ignorance to be the foundation for atheism, instead of being an educated position. It'll just making the term useless.

It is amusing to see my denial of creating the idea is some how translated into me having created the idea. Nevermind that a quick Google search will show the idea dates back at least 5 years, probably more as I only looked over 1 search result page. So not only is there a break in logical, that I must prove I did not create the phrase, but followed by the complete unwillingness for one to do their own research. And people wonder why I wish to distance myself from this ilk when they post comments such as that...

It's very frustrating indeed. I hear ya'.

I never thought forums would change anyone's opinion. In order to changes one's opinions they must be open to being wrong. Few holding any position will do so until blatantly proven wrong, but some will still be holdouts anyways. This is true of humanity not just theism, atheism, republican, etc. For me these discussions keep me sharp as my interactive work is just lecturing from texts to students and written reports, neither is an environment for any form of dialogue.

Again, totally agree. My reason to come here was to learn new things, but most of the time it's just impossible to have a dialogue. It's not a dialogue, but war every time. (Except for a few people that I've had some good conversations with and allowed me to get new insights, but those occasions are rare.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

These people are jerks that happen to be atheists or murders that happen to be atheists. Neither is due to atheism itself.

That they are atheists though is highly relative, as it demonstrates that it's not an issue with certain groups, but a problem with people as a whole. Atheists as a whole make up a small part of the population, so of course we won't hear nearly as many stories of their bad behavior, but by the very default they are still people, they are not exempt for having their bad examples.

 

[Revoltingest]

That they are atheists though is highly relative, as it demonstrates that it's not an issue with certain groups, but a problem with people as a whole. Atheists as a whole make up a small part of the population, so of course we won't hear nearly as many stories of their bad behavior, but by the very default they are still people, they are not exempt for having their bad examples.

Me ears were burn'n......you called?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Back this up wih actual quotes, please. I think you're making a misrepresentation... or at least bad inferences about motives.

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).

Heh... the world's first Marxist Neocon.

Actually, Hitchens' views changed dramatically throughout his life. Before 9/11, he was anti-war. He even protested against the Vietnam War.

Do I agree with all his political positions? No, but I can acknowledge that he wasn't afraid to radically change his views when he felt it was needed.

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.

What evidence?

And you do realize that this quote (which didn't originate with Dawkins, BTW) doesn't imply that religious people are bad, right? The first part of the quote that you left out says "with or without religion, you will have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things."

"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)

Why would you assume that when Dawkins says "we read X", he really means "I believe X"... especially when it's in the context of an explanation of why he doesn't believe X?

How do they differ from evangelicals then?

I can't see a way in which they're similar, frankly.

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)

Since your "examples" are all either false at worst and suspect at best, I'm not inclined to put much stock in them.

"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."

Source?

(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)

False analogy.

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').

So what?

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

I definitely don't agree with everything Dawkins says (example: http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/ric...dophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/). I'm interested, though, in what sorts of "obviously false" statements you're referring to. Can you give some examples (with sources)?

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

Not anyone, but I think you are. It seems like you've made up your mind that Dawkins and Hitchens are evil and closed-minded, facts be damned, and then tarred atheism in general with the same brush.

 

[leibowde84]

Militancy is combatitiveness. Dawkins is combatative.

Hard to blame him when he's arguing with people who scoff at evidence and rationality in the name of their previously held beliefs.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok. I'll let this go. you're wrong, and so I'll leave you with this.This is how desperate communists were to eliminate religion. Whatever you think of it at least I can say it will make you laugh.

Spoiler

Here's a calender from 1939, when the Soviet Union abolished Sundays and introduced a six day week so people couldn't celebrate the Sabath.

seriously.

To them it was the same thing as they didn't make the secular distinction between politics and religion. Slogans of the League of Militant Atheists:
"Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism"
"Struggle against religion is a struggle for the five-year plan!"

As previously quoted...

"It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done."

[From Wikipedia:] Stalin called "to bring to completion the liquidation of the reactionary clergy in our country". Stalin called for an "atheist five year plan" from 1932–1937, led by the League of Militant Godless, in order to completely eliminate all religious expression in the USSR. It was declared that the concept of God would disappear from the Soviet Union.

here's a section of the Front Cover of the League of Militant Atheists magazine, Bezbozhnik, showing the Jewish, Christian and Islamic Gods being crushed by the five year plan.

Spoiler: May be offensive

well said. I'm beginning to notice a pattern developing.

This shows a connection between "anti-theism" and communism. But, where do you get the connection with "atheism"? I don't see it. From this, I can understand why so many atheists are motivated to fight back against erroneous correlations with their "lack of belief" (see below):

WHAT IS ATHEISM? (http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?)
No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

 

[leibowde84]

This is a bit like having your cake and eating it. Terming it militant atheism makes it no longer personal atheism in the passive sense.

Religious people often say 'my god is one of love and peace', yet get collective blame for what their their coreligionists do - at least from 'militant atheists'

Militant atheism/new atheism does have a doctrine, that religious influence on society should be removed as it is harmful. This is a political view and once you start defining one group of people, believers, as being any combination of harmful/dangerous/deluded/inferior as many 'militant' atheists do, then you can see the parallels with other political/religious ideologies

People and governments have killed millions for the goal of removing religious influence from society.

Far more have been killed in the name of forcing religious beliefs/traditions on others. So, what's your point?

 

[Laika]

This shows a connection between "anti-theism" and communism. But, where do you get the connection with "atheism"? I don't see it. From this, I can understand why so many atheists are motivated to fight back against erroneous correlations with their "lack of belief" (see below):

WHAT IS ATHEISM? (http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?)
No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

because they were not secular and didn't differenitate between political, philosophical and religious/anti-religious beliefs.they constituted a single complex and unified worldview. they absolutely didn't define their atheism by "lack of belief". they believed their was no god and that it was a scientific fact. it therefore affected every other aspect of their beliefs. it was a philosophical worldview and did not see their atheism in isolation.

 

[leibowde84]

because they were not secular and didn't differenitate between political, philosophical and religious/anti-religious beliefs.they constituted a single complex and unified worldview. they absolutely didn't define their atheism by "lack of belief". they believed their was no god and that it was a scientific fact. it therefore affected every other aspect of their beliefs. it was a philosophical worldview and did not see their atheism in isolation.

Again, this is an "anti-theism" movement you are commenting on, not an "atheist" movement. They are vastly different things.

 

[outhouse]

Hard to blame him when he's arguing with people who scoff at evidence and rationality in the name of their previously held beliefs.

Exactly

He argues people who refuse facts, and points out their fallacies and ignorance. Its not militant in any way.


Biology just happens to be a sore spot for many theist who wish to pervert it.

 

[Laika]

Again, this is an "anti-theism" movement you are commenting on, not an "atheist" movement. They are vastly different things.

I have seven years researching and adhereing to this ideology and I can promise you, that you are mistaken.

Is there anything I could do which would give sufficient proof to demonstrate to you this is not the case (edit: and that atheism and anti-theism were inter-changable)?

 

[Augustus]

Back this up wih actual quotes, please. I think you're making a misrepresentation... or at least bad inferences about motives.

Read the God Delusion, the End of faith, etc.

Heh... the world's first Marxist Neocon.

Only if you discount several of the people who created neo-Conservatism (i.e. ex-Trotskyist Irving kristol, etc.). Neo-Conservatism has a stronger history on the left of the spectrum and had its roots in the Democratic Party. Tony Blair, for example, was a neo-con despite being centre-left.

In America they had a 'marriage of convenience' with the religious right.

And you do realize that this quote (which didn't originate with Dawkins, BTW) doesn't imply that religious people are bad, right? The first part of the quote that you left out says "with or without religion, you will have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things."

Yes, I know. The problem I have, is that it seems to suggest that it is only (or at least mostly) religion that can cause this problem, instead of being one of many potential causes.

Why would you assume that when Dawkins says "we read X", he really means "I believe X"... especially when it's in the context of an explanation of why he doesn't believe X?

It is in the context of 'why should we assume babies belong to the faith of their parents'. The point could have very easily been made without referring to an incorrect, bigoted trope. If he doesn't give it any credence a) why use it? and b) why not clarify that it is clearly false?

Source?

I wouldn't usually use the Daily Mail as a source, but it is in line with other comments I've heard him make.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ren-child-abuse-claims-atheist-professor.html

False analogy.

No. You try to bring up children with your own values whatever their source, and this source is subjective.

Not anyone, but I think you are. It seems like you've made up your mind that Dawkins and Hitchens are evil and closed-minded, facts be damned, and then tarred atheism in general with the same brush.

Why would I tar myself with the same brush?

I don't think they are evil. I just disagree with them and think that their views contain many of the problems with which they ascribe to religion. Hitchens promoted ideological, aggressive warfare, and Dawkins makes arguments based on a superficial interpretation of the evidence.

Can you give some examples (with sources)?

The 2 I presented for starters. I used to agree with most of their views and have read/watched plenty of their material. I can't really be bothered to go through it all again, but New Atheists clearly see religion as an unparalleled source of 'evil', which I think is wrong, and clearly so.

Far more have been killed in the name of forcing religious beliefs/traditions on others. So, what's your point?

Given that the 20th C was the most violent on record, and most of the deaths were as a result of 2 radical ideologies that rejected the religious based values of Western tradition, holding religion to be uniquely violent is clearly wrong.

No. I'm not saying that atheism specifically caused these, just that the rejection of traditional religious derived values made them possible. The point is not that 'atheism is bad', but 'what replaces religious based values might well be something much worse'. This in no way asserts that religion is not problematic or hasn't caused a great deal of violence.

So careful what you wish for...

 

[outhouse]

and that atheism and anti-theism were inter-changable

They factually are not.

 

[leibowde84]

I have seven years researching and adhereing to this ideology and I can promise you, that you are mistaken.

Is there anything I could do which would give sufficient proof to demonstrate to you this is not the case (edit: and that atheism and anti-theism were inter-changable)?

It doesn't matter at all whether you used to be an atheist. Not sure why it would. The words mean very different things, and the vast majority of atheists aren't very vocal about it and have no problem with religion. They merely aren't convinced by it.

 

[Augustus]

Again, this is an "anti-theism" movement you are commenting on, not an "atheist" movement. They are vastly different things.

So the "League of militant Atheists" weren't actually atheists?

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

Or when countless Marxists thinkers talked about atheism, it had nothing to do with atheism?

This is why arguing against the 'rocks are atheists' type arguments is important. People think atheism can't be linked to any any larger worldview because it is just 'lack of belief'.

Atheism has typically been a rejection of theism and thus a statement about the nature of the world and this can lead to many many places.

None of these are implicit to atheism, but all are potential consequences.

 

[Laika]

It doesn't matter at all whether you used to be an atheist. Not sure why it would. The words mean very different things, and the vast majority of atheists aren't very vocal about it and have no problem with religion. They merely aren't convinced by it.

I was a COMMUNIST. and I continue to be an atheist. you are getting this from the horses mouth. you are wrong.

Is there any evidence I can give you that your position is wrong?

 

[leibowde84]

So the "League of militant Atheists" weren't actually atheists?

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

Or when countless Marxists thinkers talked about atheism, it had nothing to do with atheism?

This is why arguing against the 'rocks are atheists' type arguments is important. People think atheism can't be linked to any any larger worldview because it is just 'lack of belief'.

Atheism has typically been a rejection of theism and thus a statement about the nature of the world and this can lead to many many places.

None of these are implicit to atheism, but all are potential consequences.

Atheism and anti-theism are different positions. I never said that atheists cannot also be anti-theists.