Militant Atheism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here the definition I found for it.

1. Militant atheism (Russian: воинствующий атеизм) is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Militant_atheism
And it seems to be a common usage.

It's telling that you had to use Conservapedia to find a source that agrees with you.

Militant atheism is a derogatory neologism associated primarily with the New Atheism movement. The term describes atheists and secularists who actively campaign against religion and against religious influence in public life or government ruling. Countering religion, criticising and arguing rationally against it is somehow seen as wrong. Militant atheism is generally thought of as "being on the rise," particularly due to religious turmoil following 9/11.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Militant_atheism

You never bothered to actually read that article all the way through, did you? I'd bet good money that you didn't, because you ignored all the parts that explain how you're wrong.

 

[Augustus]

Just a bit more material on Marx's atheism, and how it was essential to his philosophy. Also a bit about the atheism of Soviet Communism too.

"When you presuppose the idea of an objective god, how can you talk of laws which reason produces from itself, since autonomy can be attributed only to an absolutely free being? " Karl Marx, Notes to [Marx's] Dissertation

Basically, who is sovereign, God or man? It must be one or the other, it can't be both.

Marx's position was that if man is not the appropriator and creator of self and self's destiny, and especially if he is not even aware and con scious of himself as the creator of self and self's destiny, then he is non existent. Until man arrives at such a consciousness of self, he is alienated and fragmented. According to Marx, religion is the greatest culprit for instilling into man's consciousness the idea of creation by another - above all by God. Thus through religion man is dispossessed of his creative consciousness. Consequently, he is dispossessed of the chance and ability to create his own self, create his own identity and destiny. Instead man loses consciousness and awareness of self. He becomes like an object, like another commodity regulated by the forces of production and the relations of production.

The Role of Atheism in Marxian Philosophy, Russel P. Moroziuk, Studies in Soviet Thought, Vol. 14, No. 3/4 (Sep. - Dec., 1974),

"chief among these expressions of a 'false consciousness' is religion. Religion is, first of all, a result of historical evolution, a reflection of the economic conditions of a is -like all ideologies - an arm in the class-war and is used to prevent man's progress toward self-realization. This is why Marx felt obliged to come out openly for the total supression of religion and it is this aspect of his atheism which was seized upon by his Marxist-Leninist heirs."

"Lenin's atheism was more instinctive than rational and, at the same time, it was more violent than that of either Marx or Engels... Lenin's militant atheism set the tone for the activities of Marxist-Leninist atheists from his death until the dark days of the Second World War. Practical atheism was the order of the day mainly because the then reigning crown prince of Soviet philosophy, Stalin, had not uttered one theoretical statement on the subject of God and religion. Practical atheism meant schools of atheism, administrative elimination of the clergy, journals and newspapers full of hate-propaganda directed against all believers, atheist museums located in former churches, and numerous other forms of persecution and suppression. But, the main emphasis in this period was on education - an education designed to eliminate religious customs and beliefs... "

Scientific Atheism: An Introduction, Thomas J. Blakeley, Studies in Soviet Thought, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Dec., 1964),

 

[Nakosis]

How about something credible

I gave to independent, as far as I know sources. The beginning of this thread shows where the term is used often. When people use the term, it is what they mean, where is this not the case. Maybe you don't like the term but that is the way it is being used.

[/quote]
The gentlemen you mentioned are fighting fanaticism, not religion.

If you people used religion in moderation and were not fanatical or fundamentalist, they would not say a word.

They are not militant atheist. People protecting academia and education and truth are not militant, there out doing the right thing do against some very bad people that would love to retard humanity.[/QUOTE]

But they do say a word, many words in fact, they've been openly hostile.

Dawkins has said he was hostile towards religion. Harris has said Islam is the cult of death, that seems pretty hostile. Though actually I've read somewhere that Dawkins has apologized for his hostility towards Christianity.

They fight fanaticism, they seem to focus on religious fanaticism.

I'm not arguing about what they do, you just don't like the word people are using to define their behavior.

 

[Nakosis]

It's telling that you had to use Conservapedia to find a source that agrees with you.


You never bothered to actually read that article all the way through, did you? I'd bet good money that you didn't, because you ignored all the parts that explain how you're wrong.

I was wrong? I see see they also argue with the usage, they aren't saying people are not using the term.

I didn't have to use consevapedia, there or plenty of other sources. You don't have to use the term, you can disagree with it's usage but you don't get to say how other folks can or can't use it.

This is how people are using the term. That's a fact. If you want to argue against the fact, fine, knock yourself out.

It is how the term is being used. Sorry you don't like it, nothing I can do about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But they do say a word, many words in fact, they've been openly hostile.

Dawkins has said he was hostile towards religion. Harris has said Islam is the cult of death, that seems pretty hostile. Though actually I've read somewhere that Dawkins has apologized for his hostility towards Christianity.

Hypothetical scenario: say someone described the Pope as an "Antichrist", "man of sin", and "son of perdition". Would this be hostile enough for you to call them militant?

 

[Nakosis]

Hypothetical scenario: say someone described the Pope as an "Antichrist", "man of sin", and "son of perdition". Would this be hostile enough for you to call them militant?

I hardly use the term myself. If I wanted to employee rhetoric in a dialogue, I suppose sure, maybe. I might use it sarcastically, either mocking myself or other folks who use the term.

I might call them grape-heads too. That doesn't mean I think their heads were actually made out of grapes. Language usage is pretty flexible. I've grown up with English. Slang, pejorative terms, it's what Americans do.

You could also object to the term grape-head but it all seems pointless to me. No one is asking you personally to use or accept the term grape-head but we can get a general understanding, especially with enough common usage what concept is being conveyed by the term.