1. 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

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Nakosis, Aug 20, 2015.

  1. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    35,805
    Ratings:
    +1,857
    Correct.

    Good catch. I meant born into theism. Brain does not always communicate well with the typing fingers :D
     
  2. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,795
    Ratings:
    +3,791
    Religion:
    Antipolitician
    I think Karl Marx's reasoning was used, probably against his intents, to justify atrocity. I can see his reasoning being used to justify action against religion, not necessarily violence. Just maybe the actions we see atheists taking now. Legal, protests, putting up billboards etc.

    I also see the potential of Marx's words to resonate with fellow atheists. No doubt why they were used in a political manner. Like Christians using the gospels to go to war over the "Holy Lands".

    I'm playing a little bit of devil's advocate here. I personally don't agree with Marx.

    However I also believe that people, even though they like to think themselves independent thinkers, they really aren't that independent. People who hear something that supports what they already believe long enough, the thinking start to get programmed in. The logic becomes reasonable.

    We are still dealing with this subconscious brain which is larger, more powerful than the consciousness we possess. It has a lot to do with what we accept as reasonable.

    Consciously we are independent, subconsciously, maybe not so much.
     
  3. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Crazy Diamond

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    47,966
    Ratings:
    +15,189
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    It does matter, because it's the same "no true Christian/Muslim/Etc." would use to defend their own group against the bad things people did in its name. The Crusades, for example, many Christians will argue that it was somehow different, somehow not applicable, and not something that represents their religion. The most frequently used phrase is "no true (or real) Christian would do this."
    Stalin was an atheist. In terms of his views of the supernatural, however, it seems to be entirely irrelevant, except that it does show that people do not need religion to do great acts of violence.
     
  4. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,689
    Ratings:
    +1,373
    I agree with you.
    Regards
     
  5. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,689
    Ratings:
    +1,373
    A good argument.
    Regards
     
  6. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,689
    Ratings:
    +1,373
  7. Ouroboros

    Ouroboros Coincidentia oppositorum

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,050
    Ratings:
    +2,497
    Religion:
    Reality's Fool / Dual-aspect pantheist
    So true. Same here. My fingers type faster than I think, most of the time.
     
  8. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,689
    Ratings:
    +1,373
    Very good points, I appreciate the post.
    Regards
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    52,743
    Ratings:
    +12,058
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    I said "no other premises", but you gave me a boatload of them.

    You're trying to sell me stone soup. If you need Marxism to get from atheism to the conclusion that religion should be eradicated, why not just be open about what you're doing and say that MARXISM, not atheism, leads you to this conclusion?

    Of course there's another option: PLACE VALUE ON HUMAN FREEDOM AND AUTONOMY. Give theists the respect due to people.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. ether-ore

    ether-ore Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2015
    Messages:
    489
    Ratings:
    +54
    Religion:
    Christian/LDS
    Personally, I find a contradiction in the two phrases: "[loves] his fellow man" and "[those fellowmen] being suppressed (and enslaved by religion)". Love is far from being indicated in the presence of the real emotion of contempt. The assumption is that people of faith are being suppressed. That is not the faithful's feeling on the matter. That is the projection of the atheist on the person of faith out of a feeling of hate and disgust, not "love".

    It is right in line with the sentiment that people of faith (especially Christians) should be... (and I quote) "put to the fire".
     
  11. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    8,481
    Ratings:
    +7,289
    Religion:
    none
    (have removed name from quote, as the following post is not specifically related to any one person)

    The purpose of Marxism was to FREE people, not control them. It didn't work out in practice, but atheism was man's route out of slavery and towards freedom.

    Plenty of evidence has been posted on this thread, including from primary philosophical sources such as Marx and Lenin, that atheism wasn't just an accessory of Marxism, it was inseparable from Marxism.

    Aren't atheists on RF supposed to be skeptical and interested in critical enquiry? If a religious believer kept ignoring every piece of evidence simply because they had come to some preconceived opinion there would be howls of protest from the 'sceptics'.

    Plenty of posters still deny that atheism is a core, fundamental component of Marxism-Leninism despite such evidence from multiple posters (and this is just a selection, not the totality)

    The criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

    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.

    The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being.

    There therefore was no distinction between it's [Marxism's] philosophical views regarding atheism and it's political views.

    The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

    The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.

    Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."


    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

    Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.

    Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism

    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.



    We have had comments from various 'sceptics' like: 'Marx was a Christian', 'Marxism was political not about religion', 'Atheism is not a component of Marxism', 'no amount of evidence about communism from communist sources is valid to support a point about communism', 'atheists who say atheism is part of Marxism are really just desperate theists', etc. etc. but no discussion of the evidence posted.

    You have someone like 'Laika', who actually knows a lot about Marxism, being 'refuted' by people who appear to know very little except the ability to retort to a standardised vapid cliche of the kind propagated by vocal atheists. "Let's show our free-thinking ways by mindlessly parroting what evangelical atheists say about atheism".

    No one ever critiques the actual evidence provided, just a response that resorts to redefining atheism as 'nothing' (rocks and babies are atheists and rocks can't be communists); pretending that it can't be a philosophical position with significant knock on consequences; fragmenting definitions and concepts to an atomised level and pretending that they exist in a vacuum and thus can't be said to be related in any way; unilaterally deciding that unless a characteristic can be said to apply to all atheists, then it is applicable to no atheists; and deciding that because something is not true about 'my' atheism, then it can't even be considered atheism at all.

    The same sort of atheist who sees the word 'Christian', in Nazi propaganda and takes this as overwhelming evidence that Hitler was a Christian (despite plenty of evidence that shows he wasn't [not necessarily an atheist though]), ignores the repeated use of atheist in fundamental philosophical texts written by the founders of Marxism-Leninism as simply some rhetorical flourish that really only relates to cynical political opportunism.

    There are numerous forms of atheism, some passive and relatively inconsequential, there are other forms in which it is a fundamental statement of the nature of the world and the foundations of their entire belief system.

    You can't just wish the forms you don't like away through semantic trickery.

    Whether people like it or not, they exist in a world defined by religion, gods and related tradition. Many atheists like to claim being atheist is like being an a-unicornist, which is the worst kind of specious sophistry. Atheism, for many people in the modern world, means accepting that the foundations of our entire society, morality and way of life are built upon a lie. How can this not be something of immense significance?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    52,743
    Ratings:
    +12,058
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    "Theism is incompatible with Marxism" does not equal "Marxism is the inevitable result of atheism."

    Some of them, sure. My skepticism is what stops me from credulously swallowing what you're trying to feed me.

    Who's doing that?

    Atheism is necessary but not sufficient to be a Marxist. Abstaining from alcohol and pork is necessary but not sufficient to be a violent Jihadi.

    So what? This no more means that someone who doesn't believe in God has to worry about the implications of Marxism than a straightedge vegan has to worry about the implications of Muslim terrorism.

    If you have a problem with the idea that if something is true in general, it's also true in the specific, I'm not sure anyone can help you.

    It seems you're confusing the idea that there are atheists with certain characteristics with the idea that atheism causes those characteristics.

    Find me a tenet of Marxism that I agree with that leads to some conclusion like "theists should be forcibly converted" and I'll either reject that tenet or accept the conclusion. As it is now, I don't know of any.

    When it comes to Hitler, though, it's generally irrelevant whether he was a "true Christian" or just feigned Christianity for political gain; he relied heavily on Christian thought, especially the writings of Martin Luther, for his positions toward Jews. While there are plenty of Christians who disregard or actively disagree with those writings (e.g. most Catholics), they still damn those specific Christians who uphold them as good and true... and there are millions upon millions of such Christians. Other Christians might not have this connection to Hitler, but many of them have similar problems, whether that means embracing anti-Semite John Calvin as a good man or refusing to say that various Popes were wrong when they issued bulls endorsing slavery against various groups.

    THAT is the difference.

    Nobody is saying that it isn't. It's the next step that's the issue: where we ask "... so what are you going to do about it?" That's the question that atheism does absolutely nothing to answer. It's entirely informed by our values and attitudes from other sources.

    When you stop believing in gods, this frees you to believe in things that aren't compatible with belief in gods. That's it.

    In a similar way, not carrying a pumpkin around frees up your hands to carry other things. Maybe some people who don't carry pumpkins will choose to carry weapons instead, but it makes no sense to talk about the implications for violence of not carrying a pumpkin... even though not carrying a pumpkin "enables" violence from a certain perspective.
     
  13. Pudding

    Pudding Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,316
    Ratings:
    +265
    http://www.newzimbabwe.com/columns-24021-Atheism+Blind+men+arguing+about+sunset/columns.aspx
    I agree that this militant Atheist group can be considered as extreme.
    I say let people have the freedom to practice their religion, if their religion's practice infringe your human rights only then you could/should criticize/oppose the religion's practice.

    Don't sweeping generalise all religion/theist/atheist that they're all the one same type of religion/theist/atheist. Some people is good, some is bad, not all people is the same.

    Don't criticize/oppose those religion's practice which do not infrige your human rights.
    Only criticize/oppose those religion's practice which do infrige your human rights.

    Atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
    Some atheist don't believe in the existence of any God(s) as they find no convincing evidence to support the existence of those God(s), because of this they can be call being insanity?

    Not sure what the sophistries is refer to.

    Unsubstantiated claims and an attempt of sweeping generalizations to all atheism/atheist.

    It's not insane for some atheist to don't believe in any Maker because they find no convincing evidence to support the existence of those Maker.

    It's an argument of "if some things can't be explain then its only plausible explanation is God did it".

    When some things X can't be explain, the logical response is "i don't know" not "using some other concept which again cannot be explain/prove like God(s) and claims/assume that God did it".

    Inappropriate sweeping generalizations.

    I hope the "some people" which have mention is not refer to "all atheist", otherwise it's another inappropriate sweeping generalizations.

    The argument of "if some things can't be explain then its only plausible explanation is God did it".

    When some things can't be explain, the logical response is "i don't know" not "making unsubstantiated claims/assumption that God did it".

    Inappropriate sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated claims to false accuse atheists of stealing [moral/world view] from theists.

    If there is God in heaven, then prove it.
    After the proving have been done and if some atheists still find the proof to be unconvincing for them, then everyone carry on to live their life. No need to continue to criticize those atheists for not believing in God's existence because they find no convincing evidence to support the validity of God's existence.
     
    #273 Pudding, Sep 1, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2015
  14. Jumi

    Jumi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    9,334
    Ratings:
    +5,026
    Religion:
    Secular theist (none)
    Not so much for Leninism and Stalinism which are different beasts.

    It was not and still isn't. Many Marxists in my country still are religious as it is in South America for example.

    I don't think you've reviewed the whole evidence.

    Now you are talking about Marxism-Leninism which is different from Marxism.


    And he later changed his mind, supporting the priests and having them bless the Soviet arms used against their enemies, including my country.

    And we have people who can't separate Marxism from Marxism-Lenininsm and Stalinism.

    If it was actual evidence, you wouldn't need to do logical jumps.

    Indeed the Nazis had a plan to make a new Christianity, a new church that had a nationalistic bent. They had little tolerance for atheism, especially not in the SS. We can't blame the "Christians" for it, but we can blame some of his antisemitism on the antisemitism of the Christians that inspired him.

    What do you mean that the foundations are based on a lie? The laws are from the Roman Empire, philosophy from the Greeks etc.
     
    #274 Jumi, Sep 1, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2015
  15. Jumi

    Jumi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    9,334
    Ratings:
    +5,026
    Religion:
    Secular theist (none)
    Marxists aren't necessarily atheists. I'll just leave this here:

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
     
  16. Jumi

    Jumi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    9,334
    Ratings:
    +5,026
    Religion:
    Secular theist (none)
  17. ether-ore

    ether-ore Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2015
    Messages:
    489
    Ratings:
    +54
    Religion:
    Christian/LDS
    What you say is a very nice bit of sophistry. Conflicting ideologies have been able to coexist in this country because of the constitution. Now that the government has all but destroyed the constitution and has polarized the populace by its all invasive methods and controls, there is very little left to keep one ideology from saying that opposing ideas and philosophies have no justification for existence.

    I keep hearing atheists say that to be an atheist is to be free. It seems to me that in the resulting socialist/communist/dictatorial state the only thing an atheist becomes free of is the last bit of restraint which keeps him from physically expressing his contempt for anyone with a religious belief or anyone that opposes his position of power. So, what you say, in practical terms as well as historically, does not hold true. If and when atheists come to power (or at least dominance in the culture) then the gas chambers will be built and the furnaces lit.

    It may well be that there are atheists who are not so militant, but that is not relevant. They will of necessity be obliged to follow suit with those who are militant... and militant atheists do exist and they are eaten up with hate for the religious and it is they who desire power.
     
  18. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,795
    Ratings:
    +3,791
    Religion:
    Antipolitician
    The problem there is atheism does not sit by itself in isolation.

    You gave me a stone and asked me to make soup. What did you expect?

    But this is not answering the question. Is religion, in your opinion, a good or bad ingredient in your soup?
     
  19. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    52,743
    Ratings:
    +12,058
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Yes - no atheist is just an atheist. Every atheist will have all sorts of other views and values. It's those views and values that are the source for... well... everything the atheist believes. An atheist's beliefs don't really flow from atheism; it's just that atheists are free to believe things that are incompatible with theism.

    A rock in a pot of water, if you were approaching things honestly.

    I need something other than atheism to come to a value judgement about religion.
     
  20. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,795
    Ratings:
    +3,791
    Religion:
    Antipolitician
    I can only really tell you my position as an atheist. I don't know how unique it happens to be but here goes.

    The purpose of life is the achievement of happiness. If being religious, following your religion makes you happy, then it is important that you are allowed to do so as long as it is not infringing on someone else's pursuit of happiness.

    I think being an atheist is necessary for my happiness. There is no reason to think it is necessary for your's or anyone else's happiness. It's not my job to decide for you what is going to make you happy.

    9-10th is correct, atheism itself doesn't lead to anti-theism, however atheism doesn't exist in isolation.

    "PLACE VALUE ON HUMAN FREEDOM AND AUTONOMY"

    If a person happens to see religion as oppressive, using this as a premise, is religion good or bad?
     
Loading...