• 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
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?

The term is militant atheism

"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."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Militant_atheism

So is this a fair deception of militants...

Militant-Atheist.png


I'm just looking for opinions. When people use the word militant, are these the correct images.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
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

It gives no one a free pass. What it means is that the crimes of individuals are connected to the individuals who actually committed the crime instead of throwing non-involved bystanders into the mix merely because they are somehow designated as being part of "the group."
 
"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."

Humans are animals. We do not occupy a place outside or above the animal kingdom and natural world, we are a part of it. Sometimes people do bad things simply because their instincts (how they are wired) compel them to, if they see an opportunity they will take advantage of it. Some theists insist on a black and white worldview were everyone supposedly has the same instincts and desires. That is not reality. So an aggressive and violent person will be an aggressive and violent person regardless of beliefs. It has nothing to do with whether they are an atheist or theist.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
instead of throwing non-involved bystanders into the mix merely because they are somehow designated as being part of "the group."

I'm just challenging the claim of innocence here. Of course context is key and in that example you are correct.

I don't find that example mirroring the reality of the situation though. Some groups push or teach individuals to do said things, so in reality we are also focused on the groups culpability here.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm just challenging the claim of innocence here. Of course context is key and in that example you are correct.

I don't find that example mirroring the reality of the situation though. Some groups push or teach individuals to do said things, so in reality we are also focused on the groups culpability here.

In honesty, I don't really care about issues of culpability in the sense most people do, nor am I a fan of my country's justice system. What annoys me is prejudice and bigotry. And it especially annoys me when news outlets stick someone's religious affiliation (or other group affiliation) in their headlines as click bait and to gain readership when those affiliations are not actually relevant to the case. The "news" outlets in the first two posts are perfect examples of that. Click bait rubbish at its finest.
 

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
§ 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)

None of whom acted in the name of atheism, communism opposes religion because religion gets in the way of absolute adherence to the state, which communism requires. In fact, Joseph Stalin reopened the churches and used them late in the war. It's not atheism involved here at all.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
In honesty, I don't really care about issues of culpability in the sense most people do, nor am I a fan of my country's justice system. What annoys me is prejudice and bigotry. And it especially annoys me when news outlets stick someone's religious affiliation (or other group affiliation) in their headlines as click bait and to gain readership when those affiliations are not actually relevant to the case. The "news" outlets in the first two posts are perfect examples of that. Click bait rubbish at its finest.


Fair enough.
 

Nakosis

Non-Dual Physicalist
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)

This seems to me to be giving up one authority for another. In this case the Communist Party. In one case the assumption is that Prophets can dictate moral authority, in the other case Party Leadership. Prophets claim God as the authority, Communism claim science is the authority.

I personally don't this is true of either case. However in this case, it is a battle over the authority to determine morality?

I suppose this is still the battle between the anti-theist (to keep outhouse happy) and the anti-atheist.
 
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.

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.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Militant atheism is a nonsense. There is no such thing. Nobody is motivated to violence by a belief they do not have.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
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.
Sorry, but that is anti-theism, not atheism.
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.
Sure, and again that is not atheism.
 

LuisDantas

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


Then I fear we can't please you just yet. That has to be established in a convincing way first.

There are very real, significant differences in theism (and to a lesser extent, religion even) that make the comparision unadvisable, except perhaps with very significant clarifications and remarks.

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.

That it is. And that is one among various reasons to be wary of unquestioned, unchecked theism.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Militancy is combatitiveness. Dawkins is combatative.

Yes,,,,, but he is doing it standing up against fanaticism in an academic manner.

My hats off because he is pushing academia, fighting those who refuse academia. And if that means tearing down the fundamentalist mythology using reality. So be it.


Don't fight science from faith, and your faith will not be questioned or put to the fire.
 
Top