Militant Atheism

[Augustus]

However, Marxism represents a philosophical tradition so alien to liberal scepticism that a theist has no right to draw a comparision between the two. They are two different atheist ideologies, which whilst having common origins in the Enlightenment, do not have common results.

The Enlightenment(s) certainly gave birth to both liberal and decidedly illiberal philosophies. While it emphasised science and reason, these are not intrinsically liberal in their nature. Liberalism was by no means a necessary requirement to be considered an Enlightenment thinker, and the Enlightenment(s) was/were not fundamentally about liberal political ideologies.

Many people like to pretend that this is not the case as it doesn't suit their ideology and seem to assume that the application of 'science, scepticism and reason' necessarily lead to modern secular humanism. Am sure you have noticed people trying to deny that authoritarian ideologies like communism could be in any way considered products of the Enlightenment.

No, Marxism and atheism are not related.

As atheism is a significant component of Marxism, am not sure how you reach that conclusion. Of course they are related, they are not synonymous, and an atheist is not intrinsically connected to Marxism, but to deny there is any relationship between them seems bizarre.

American Conservatism is not necessarily Christian, but you can't deny there exists a relationship.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

Honestly, I don't see any real or significant differences between theism and atheism until we start talking about specific flavors thereof. One group happens to use the word "god(s)" to describe some particular aspect(s) of reality, and the other group doesn't. Not exactly a significant difference.

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

That statement would come across as less of an example of the bigotry I was talking about if you also stuck "atheism" in that sentence. How about we just go "be weary of unquestioned, unchecked ideologies in general?" and also "remember that the manner in which an idea translates into meaningful, tangible behavior does not have a one-to-one correspondence to the idea."

 

[Cephus]

Atheism is lack of belief in the existence of god. It does not ential ANY commitment to protect the civil liberties of believers or an ethic of non-violence, nor a commitment to the secular seperation of church and state or perscription against an offical state ideology. Communists were Atheists and there atheism cannot be seperated from their communism.

Lots of communists are religious though, when Stalin removed restrictions on the church, they were immediately filled.
It is true that communism is a non-religious political ideology, it doesn't mean communists necessarily are. But even so, that doesn't mean that atheism was the cause of their actions. Communism was. Correlation does not imply causation.

The anti-religious campigns conducted by the state were a question of degrees rather than an absolute prohibition of religious belief within the USSR. no-one thought they could pass a law or decree that religion was banned and that it would work (unless they pretty much killed all the believers). rather they would fight it, both by scientific discovery advacing the understanding of nature and by widespread atheist education ('scientific atheism' courses were mandatory at universities in the 1950's in the USSR), and the social struggle against the church and the ruling class. there were periods of more intensive anti-religious campigns (the 1930's and the league of militant atheists is a good example) and periods of 'thawing' in offical policy such as during world war II.

They did kill a lot of them, as well as people from other groups that got in the way of adherence to communism. But the intent was never to wipe out religious belief, as I've said, it was to wipe out opposition to communism and adherence to the state. Blaming atheism for that is absurd.

 

[outhouse]

Lots of communists are religious though, when Stalin removed restrictions on the church, they were immediately filled.

Not only that he grew up religious.

His motives were neither religious or atheistic, the were however factually political.

 

[Laika]

No, Marxism and atheism are not related.

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.

But the intent was never to wipe out religious belief, as I've said, it was to wipe out opposition to communism and adherence to the state.

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

The Enlightenment(s) certainly gave birth to both liberal and decidedly illiberal philosophies. While it emphasised science and reason, these are not intrinsically liberal in their nature. Liberalism was by no means a necessary requirement to be considered an Enlightenment thinker, and the Enlightenment(s) was/were not fundamentally about liberal political ideologies.

Many people like to pretend that this is not the case as it doesn't suit their ideology and seem to assume that the application of 'science, scepticism and reason' necessarily lead to modern secular humanism. Am sure you have noticed people trying to deny that authoritarian ideologies like communism could be in any way considered products of the Enlightenment.

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

 

[icehorse]

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

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.

Wait, you were responding to a poster that said (among other things), that atheism has no dogma. You cannot say that that's true of religion.

 

[icehorse]

It does when you consider that there is no such thing as a dogmatic religion that universally requires its members to go out and commit crimes and acts of violence. That, and atheism functions analogously to a religion for at least some atheists, so... yeah.

1 - Dogma doesn't have to be violent to be dangerous.
2 - Explain how atheism functions analogously to a religion for some atheists?

 

[icehorse]

To find out what people mean by militant atheism. I could provide a number of references but mostly it boils down to being used to mean atheists who use reason, logic and the court system to attack religion.

I could of course found this out myself but I was hoping some religious folks would chime in to give their perspective.

If that's how you define militant atheism then I'd agree with other posters that the term for this is anti-theism.

 

[icehorse]

Just curious about what it be...

"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."

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/columns-24021-Atheism+Blind+men+arguing+about+sunset/columns.aspx

Is this quote about "the ultimate goal of atheism" indicative of your belief? If so, you have no idea what atheism is.

 

[icehorse]

Got it in one! Communism believed that paradise on earth was the result of a scientific understanding of history, and that scientific understanding excluded the possibility of god's existence that would have thrown a spanner in the works. basically if god exists, it means man could not be master of nature or society as there is a 'higher power' interfering with the five year plan.



Atheism is lack of belief in the existence of god. It does not ential ANY commitment to protect the civil liberties of believers or an ethic of non-violence, nor a commitment to the secular seperation of church and state or perscription against an offical state ideology. Communists were Atheists and there atheism cannot be seperated from their communism.

"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." (Yaroslavsky, 1929, Second Congress of the Union of Belligerent (or Militant) Atheists).

The anti-religious campigns conducted by the state were a question of degrees rather than an absolute prohibition of religious belief within the USSR. no-one thought they could pass a law or decree that religion was banned and that it would work (unless they pretty much killed all the believers). rather they would fight it, both by scientific discovery advacing the understanding of nature and by widespread atheist education ('scientific atheism' courses were mandatory at universities in the 1950's in the USSR), and the social struggle against the church and the ruling class. there were periods of more intensive anti-religious campigns (the 1930's and the league of militant atheists is a good example) and periods of 'thawing' in offical policy such as during world war II.

Communists substituted old religious dogma with their new dogma. As far as I know, most anti-theists are anti-dogma.

 

[Quintessence]

Wait, you were responding to a poster that said (among other things), that atheism has no dogma. You cannot say that that's true of religion.

There are plenty of religions that have no dogma. And, some atheists pretty much have dogmatic views that are an extension of their atheism (or on other cases, their atheism is an extension of dogmatic views stemming from something like empirical naturalism or scientism... but really, the chicken-or-egg issue doesn't strike me as practically relevant).

1 - Dogma doesn't have to be violent to be dangerous.
2 - Explain how atheism functions analogously to a religion for some atheists?

1) Didn't say anything about anything being dangerous?
2) I'm not really in the mood to go into this in exhaustive detail in this thread, as I think that this would be pretty self-evident if one understands what religion is. It'll suffice to say that both atheism and theism can function as key supporting pillar of the building of someone's worldview. It frames or supports a particular vision of reality, that in turn affects how reality is interpreted (the kind of stories, narratives, or facts that are told), what values are embraced (the things called special, sacred, virtuous, moral), what behaviors are undertaken (the rituals, the careers, the hobbies), and in general informs a person's understanding of life's meaning.... basically all the stuff religion does from a functional standpoint. But nor do atheism or theism have to do either of these things, and in many respects, the labels we put to the pillars of someone's worldview building are superficialities. It's the underlying territory that matters. Still, it's pretty evident that the label "non-theist" or "atheist" or "theist" functions as a major pillar for many.

 

[Bunyip]

The Enlightenment(s) certainly gave birth to both liberal and decidedly illiberal philosophies. While it emphasised science and reason, these are not intrinsically liberal in their nature. Liberalism was by no means a necessary requirement to be considered an Enlightenment thinker, and the Enlightenment(s) was/were not fundamentally about liberal political ideologies.

Many people like to pretend that this is not the case as it doesn't suit their ideology and seem to assume that the application of 'science, scepticism and reason' necessarily lead to modern secular humanism. Am sure you have noticed people trying to deny that authoritarian ideologies like communism could be in any way considered products of the Enlightenment.




As atheism is a significant component of Marxism, am not sure how you reach that conclusion.

Atheism is not a component of Marxism.

Of course they are related, they are not synonymous, and an atheist is not intrinsically connected to Marxism, but to deny there is any relationship between them seems bizarre.

American Conservatism is not necessarily Christian, but you can't deny there exists a relationship.

I'm not. There is a relationship - NOT a causal link.

 

[Shad]

Unfortunately, I can't mount a serious argument against you, there's just really not much to support it. I seriously tried and thought I'd find more.

There is the potential for individuals to violently attack religion because of their own hatred but the use of reason to attack religion, can that be called militant?

I can raise one major problem which is related to atheism in comparison to theism. Theism requires sources which document, or claim, interactions of God with the universe and us. These sources usually provide, or can be drawn upon, to create laws, morals, code of conduct, etc. Atheism lacks this. So often theists turned atheists are left in a position without the ability to look at morality and construct their own moral compass without the authority of God and God's mouth pieces; prophets, clerics, etc. This is usually due to rationalization of morality for the religion's claims rather than evaluation of these claims. Often people do not know where to start thus new atheism can become humanist or nihilist. This is a problem with education both within religions and in the public sphere. It is also a problem of pop-culture atheism which uses authority figures like Dawkins or Harris.

Militant would only apply to a form antitheism which uses physical methods of opposing theism, in this case. Namely the type that sees killing people for their beliefs and destroy a religion(s) as justified. I have no issues with this as it is separated from verbal opposition or a position of favoring secularism in the public/government sphere and it's relation. However the source of their militancy may not be due to atheism. It could be due to previous interaction, stereotypes, etc.

 

[Bunyip]

I can raise one major problem which is related to atheism in comparison to theism. Theism requires sources which document, or claim, interactions of God with the universe and us. These sources usually provide, or can be drawn upon, to create laws, morals, code of conduct, etc. Atheism lacks this. So often theists turned atheists are left in a position without the ability to look at morality and construct their own moral compass without the authority of God and God's mouth pieces; prophets, clerics, etc. This is usually due to rationalization of morality for the religion's claims rather than evaluation of these claims. Often people do not know where to start thus new atheism can become humanist or nihilist. This is a problem with education both within religions and in the public sphere. It is also a problem of pop-culture atheism which uses authority figures like Dawkins or Harris.

Militant would only apply to a form antitheism which uses physical methods of opposing theism, in this case. Namely the type that sees killing people for their beliefs and destroy a religion(s) as justified. I have no issues with this as it is separated from verbal opposition or a position of favoring secularism in the public/government sphere and it's relation. However the source of their militancy may not be due to atheism. It could be due to previous interaction, stereotypes, etc.

Establishing a moral landscape without reference to God is something that is older than monotheism itself. The atheist need not resort to nihilism, humanism or any other ism - he/she can (like Socrates) divine a moral and ethical, landscape from knowledge and reason alone. Most believers tend to interpret their theology through the lens of their existing moral compass, rather than derive their moral compass from their faith.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

They can be just as dangerous as someone as people who have faith. You can have fanatics on both sides. Not beliving in anything can have consequences as someone who believes too much in their faith.

 

[Nakosis]

Is this quote about "the ultimate goal of atheism" indicative of your belief? If so, you have no idea what atheism is.

I don't think atheism has an ultimate goal. I don't even see atheism as a philosophy. It can be either a lack of or disbelief in God.

 

[Nakosis]

I can raise one major problem which is related to atheism in comparison to theism. Theism requires sources which document, or claim, interactions of God with the universe and us. These sources usually provide, or can be drawn upon, to create laws, morals, code of conduct, etc. Atheism lacks this. So often theists turned atheists are left in a position without the ability to look at morality and construct their own moral compass without the authority of God and God's mouth pieces; prophets, clerics, etc. This is usually due to rationalization of morality for the religion's claims rather than evaluation of these claims. Often people do not know where to start thus new atheism can become humanist or nihilist. This is a problem with education both within religions and in the public sphere. It is also a problem of pop-culture atheism which uses authority figures like Dawkins or Harris.

"There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." - John Dewey

Militant would only apply to a form antitheism which uses physical methods of opposing theism, in this case. Namely the type that sees killing people for their beliefs and destroy a religion(s) as justified. I have no issues with this as it is separated from verbal opposition or a position of favoring secularism in the public/government sphere and it's relation. However the source of their militancy may not be due to atheism. It could be due to previous interaction, stereotypes, etc.

I think Buddhism would be a good moral reference for atheists.

 

[Nakosis]

If that's how you define militant atheism then I'd agree with other posters that the term for this is anti-theism.

Yes, like outhouse said, it's just rhetoric.

 

[serp777]

We don't have a word for militant anti witchism or acelestialteapotism or a leaperconism. Its ridiculous and so is this thread. Militiant atheism does not exist for the same reason its not possible to be a militant anti santaclausist.

 

[serp777]

"There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." - John Dewey



I think Buddhism would be a good moral reference for atheists.

Buddhism is a worthless moral reference for atheists. Morality is 100% relative and subjective no matter which religion or what dogma you subscribe to.