Militant Atheism

[Nakosis]

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.

Are you an atheist because of a judgement you made about religion? Maybe not, but if so, being an atheist is a result of that judgement. So it's not atheism, since it is the result of a judgement. The specifics of that judgement which led to atheism can also lead to anti-theism.

Of course I don't know. Maybe what led you to atheism has nothing to do with religion. If you are honestly neutral towards religion, then there is no reason that you would be anti-theistic.

 

[Nakosis]

Marxists aren't necessarily atheists. I'll just leave this here:
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

", although disbelieving in a supernatural deity."

Sounds like active atheism.

 

[Pudding]

If you are honestly neutral towards religion, then there is no reason that you would be anti-theistic.

Does anti-theistic means to anti-all-theistic or only anti the theistic which one have his rational reason to anti for like anti being oppress by certain religion?

 

[Nakosis]

- It's a foolish oversimplification to think of "religion" as if it's some monolithic thing. Religion is diverse.

- It isn't just a matter of binary "good" and "bad". Is it so bad that it would justify denial of freedom? Is it so bad that eradicating it d outweigh the cost and harm of whatever you needed to do to eradicate it?

- In general, it's much better to focus on the things you care about directly instead of working through proxies. If your problem is with oppression, then address oppression itself, whether religious or not. Even if oppression was pervasive in religion, it would make no sense to act against the few non-oppressive forms of religion and ignore non-religious oppression.

So folks who believe in God are your equal, in every way? Believing in God is just as reasonable for someone as not believing in God? We will never hear any bias from you against folks just because they believe in God?

Then why be an atheist? What is the benefits of being atheist over a theist? Passing a law that says everyone has to believe in God would be fine since being an atheist doesn't make any difference right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you an atheist because of a judgement you made about religion? Maybe not, but if so, being an atheist is a result of that judgement.

... in the same sense that I'm a member of this forum because I'm not holding a big pumpkin (because I couldn't type if my hands were occupied holding a big pumpkin).

So it's not atheism, since it is the result of a judgement. The specifics of that judgement which led to atheism can also lead to anti-theism.

For some people, sure. They can also lead to woodworking.*

*I've been using my "day of rest" to make cutting boards lately.

Of course I don't know. Maybe what led you to atheism has nothing to do with religion. If you are honestly neutral towards religion, then there is no reason that you would be anti-theistic.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make now. I *am* an anti-theist, but this is only related to atheism in that if I wasn't an atheist, I couldn't be an anti-theist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So folks who believe in God are your equal, in every way? Believing in God is just as reasonable for someone as not believing in God? We will never hear any bias from you against folks just because they believe in God?

Then why be an atheist? What is the benefits of being atheist over a theist? Passing a law that says everyone has to believe in God would be fine since being an atheist doesn't make any difference right?

What on Earth are you going on about? Do you think ANY of that was in the post you responded to?

 

[Nakosis]

Does anti-theistic means to anti-all-theistic or only anti the theistic which one have his rational reason to anti for like anti being oppress by certain religion?

Well lets really look at this as being atheist. Having an active disbelief in God. I think Marx saw the belief in God as oppressive. That belief not necessarily defined by religion. There was something inherently wrong with the belief itself.

I think that is something the individual atheist needs to answer. Why are they an atheist. Is it because they see something wrong with the belief in God or for some other reason.

If there is nothing wrong with the belief in God, any God, then why be an explicit atheist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Almost nothing, on its own, causes anything else. To try to create a vacuum around every single concept that exists and pretend it has no broader context is pretty pointless.

That's what you're arguing for, though.

Theism, on its own, causes nothing. Religious doctrines, on their own, cause nothing. Political ideology, on its own, causes nothing.

In most things it's belief A + belief B + situation X + experience Z

Sure, but religious belief (or lack thereof) is a lot less relevant to life's decisions than theists tend to make it out to be.

It's not about the implications of Marxism, it is about the potential implications of atheism.

No, it isn't it's about the potential implications of some mixture of ideologies you've come up with.

And this freedom from god can be just as dangerous as belief in god.

Not holding a pumpkin means you can hold a knife. Therefore, violence is an implications of not holding a pumpkin. Right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that is something the individual atheist needs to answer. Why are they an atheist. Is it because they see something wrong with the belief in God or for some other reason.

I - and every other atheist - am an atheist because I have not been convinced of the truth of any god-claim. That's it. Everything else is just layers on top of atheism.

 

[Augustus]

That's what you're arguing for, though.

Only if you ignore my actual arguments.

Sure, but religious belief (or lack thereof) is a lot less relevant to life's decisions than theists tend to make it out to be.

Given that many theist believe atheists spend their day freebasing kittens and reanimating aborted foetuses. I agree.

No, it isn't it's about the potential implications of some mixture of ideologies you've come up with.

A mixture of ideologies facilitated by atheism.

Not holding a pumpkin means you can hold a knife. Therefore, violence is an implications of not holding a pumpkin. Right?

Only if you believe that holding a pumpkin has been a fundamental part of human existence for as long as we have existed.

In the year 3000, if the West is post-religious/atheistic and if Western post-religious/atheistic society has proved successful and enduring, then I will agree. until then, I will reserve my judgement. The West is part of a new experiment, and only (a lot of) time will tell.

Western tradition is built on theistic religion. Saying plenty of societies have existed with non-theistic 'religions' is not relevant to the West. Their history is theistic and Western religion doesn't seem to survive atheism.

I don't pretend to know how this will end up. Marxist Communism was just an indicator that it ain't certain to lead to nice fluffy humanism. Religion is inherently conservative, and acts as a brake on societal change whereas radical societal change tends to not end too well.

So that's why I won't assume that atheism is the same as not holding a pumpkin.

 

[Nakosis]

... in the same sense that I'm a member of this forum because I'm not holding a big pumpkin (because I couldn't type if my hands were occupied holding a big pumpkin).

Which would be relevant if we were discussing the existence of pumpkins.

For some people, sure. They can also lead to woodworking.*

*I've been using my "day of rest" to make cutting boards lately.

Exactly, there is some reasoning occurring at some point. The specifics of that reasoning is important to the outcome.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make now. I *am* an anti-theist, but this is only related to atheism in that if I wasn't an atheist, I couldn't be an anti-theist.

The only point is you seem to be avoiding the specifics of your reasoning.

 

[Nakosis]

What on Earth are you going on about? Do you think ANY of that was in the post you responded to?

Just trying to get you to acknowledge the importance were atheism really explicit atheism stems from.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religion is inherently conservative, and acts as a brake on societal change whereas radical societal change tends to not end too well.

Except for the Quakers.

... and the Boxer Rebellion.
... and the Wars of Religion.
... and the Great Western Schism.
... and the Great Awakening (any of them).
... and iconoclasm.
... and the establishment of the state of Israel.
... and the Defenestrations of Prague.
... and the Crusades.
... and on and on and on.

Religion is almost nothing but upheaval and change. You really think that it's conservative? You've been sold a bill of goods by religious people who want to co-opt earlier traditions to give their new ones an air of authority... like how European monarchs liked to trace their family trees back to King David and King Solomon. It doesn't actually mean that the current monarch (or religion) is the rightful heir to some long-lasting dynasty.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just trying to get you to acknowledge the importance were atheism really explicit atheism stems from.

I'm sorry - I really can't tell what you're trying to say here. The sentence doesn't make sense as written and I can't see any simple typo that could be fixed to make it make sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which would be relevant if we were discussing the existence of pumpkins.

It's an analogy.

Exactly, there is some reasoning occurring at some point. The specifics of that reasoning is important to the outcome.

My decision to make cutting boards in my spare time has nothing to do with my atheism. I just happen to have spare time that I wouldn't have if I spent a big chunk of my weekend in a church or synagogue.

The only point is you seem to be avoiding the specifics of your reasoning.

They aren't based on my atheism, so they're not relevant.

 

[Pudding]

Well lets really look at this as being atheist. Having an active disbelief in God. I think Marx saw the belief in God as oppressive. That belief not necessarily defined by religion. There was something inherently wrong with the belief itself.

I think that is something the individual atheist needs to answer. Why are they an atheist. Is it because they see something wrong with the belief in God or for some other reason.

If there is nothing wrong with the belief in God, any God, then why be an explicit atheist?

One reason for atheist to be an atheist is because they've not been convinced of the existence of any God, that's why they're atheist.

If some believer's religion's practice infringe a or a group of atheist's rights, then maybe he/they voice his/their opinion to anti being infringe his/their rights by those religion's practice. Is this anti reasonable? Can this be considered as anti-theistic?

 

[Nakosis]

I - and every other atheist - am an atheist because I have not been convinced of the truth of any god-claim. That's it. Everything else is just layers on top of atheism.

That's not true for every atheist. Especially with regards to this discussion, explicit atheism. The layers underneath are important to the direction one goes after atheism.

Explicit atheism in not a staring point. Ignorance is the starting point. You can't claim ignorance since you know at least about the Christian God. Here's knowledge about God which you reject for some reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only if you believe that holding a pumpkin has been a fundamental part of human existence for as long as we have existed.

For as long as humans have cultivated pumpkins, there have been people who have carried pumpkins.

In the year 3000, if the West is post-religious/atheistic and if Western post-religious/atheistic society has proved successful and enduring, then I will agree. until then, I will reserve my judgement. The West is part of a new experiment, and only (a lot of) time will tell.

Agree with what? Why would you have to wait a thousand years before you agree that you can't hold a knife if you're carrying a big pumpkin with both hands?

Western tradition is built on theistic religion.

Western tradition is built on much more than theistic religion. Religion is just one small part of it, and how big a part varies from person to person.

Saying plenty of societies have existed with non-theistic 'religions' is not relevant to the West. Their history is theistic and Western religion doesn't seem to survive atheism.

But I didn't say that. Why are you arguing against points I didn't make that you consider irrelevant?

I don't pretend to know how this will end up. Marxist Communism was just an indicator that it ain't certain to lead to nice fluffy humanism.

The Russian Revolution was by an oppressed people against their oppressors generally, including the aristocracy, the government, and the clergy. Atheism really had little to nothing to do with it. It would have played out virtually the same if it was a revolt by some oppressed religious group.

The oppressed lashed out against their oppressors. That's it. The fact that some of those oppressors were clergy is no more important than any number of factors.

 

[Cephus]

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

Personally, I think religion is a bad ingredient in any soup, just like arsenic. It doesn't matter how you frame it or how you try to hide it, putting arsenic in your soup is a horrible idea.

 

[Nakosis]

It's an analogy.

My decision to make cutting boards in my spare time has nothing to do with my atheism. I just happen to have spare time that I wouldn't have if I spent a big chunk of my weekend in a church or synagogue.

They aren't based on my atheism, so they're not relevant.

What is important is what your atheism is based on. If it is a lack of knowledge, information or experience, then yes that is pretty implicit. I'm not really discussing implicit atheism.