Confronting Militant Atheism

In other wrods, Communist regimes can brainwash someone into believing their system is right because they have something of substance to follow, but I can't say I've seen anyone truely become athiest through someone else talking about it. Atheism is a yes or no to one question, is there a god, religion is a life style that you can choose to follow, much like a political system. Idealogies go against each other, ex: Communism vs Christianity. Atheism vs Believer/Of Faith is a definition of your stance.

For instance, you cannot be atheist and claim the Bible is literally true (thus, automatically, atheism means the Bible is literally false

This sort of seems like a cop out to me. Ofcourse a athiest doesn't believe it literally true, how can we say otherwise? But it's nothing added to us having something in common. You'd be creating a paradox by saying "No I don't believe in the Christian god, but yes I fully believe in the bible!". Thats a given and not really a choice, it's a impossiblity and a bad example of trying to show athiests have more incommon then just the idea of not believing in the supernatural. The two go hand in hand!

 A good example would be saying that two athiest believe all religions should be abolished. It's something that would represent a common idea that is not a must in being a athiest. That would be a definition of a ideology starting, and from that it would cause a group to be formed, but does not represent all athiest, which means, you can't once again group us, because again atheism represents a definition.

Originally posted by Cezar It seems that the conclusion should be that there are militant atheists but ther is no militant atheism.   I don't really see how that follows...   By virtue of the fact that there are militant atheists, we

I think it makes perfect sense. Let me reverse the role then. What if we always spoke of "Militant Believers"? Everytime the KKK did something bad, and they do call themselves a Christian organization, do you think most Christians and even other religions would appreciate them only being refered to as a Militant group of Believers?  I mean, I have seen people get up set when someone says religion does more harm to civilization, I see it all the time. And that a sweeping accusation just like this is. You say Militant Athiest and you only think of athiest. It's part of the reason that we are the most untrusted group of people in the United States. Communism and Athiest have been so closely tied together due to past campaigns against Communism, that now people in the US automaticly assocciate atheism with bad. But when you speak of a group of people saying they are religious, the first thing people of religious background ask, "Of what religion were they?", and even then if it's not their religion, they may insult them. You only have to look on the news or speak to a Christian about Muslims and vice versa and they say how different they are or go to insults. They don't make the connection that they are related, but look at differences.

 

So why can people of religion talk of distinctions between each other? But atheism and communism have to be linked for example? Because of this, I don't even like to be called a athiest.

"militant Christian" would designate all Christians as such.

Yet people still get upset about that designation. When the IRA is discussed, everyone automaticly says it's more to do with politics then religion(which let me say I agree, I've just seen it argued about them being motivated with the idea of protestants vs catholics). Same with Militant Muslims, Muslims on our forum say that it's more political and has nothing to do with Islam.

But Militant Atheism, again, the only name I ever seen brought up as a true example is Communism, and maybe not by you, but I haven't seen another true organization yet that can be truely termed as "Militant". 

But all I can see is one group that that comes close to getting the title of militant athiest, and I think they were more concerned with politics and economy and fighting capitalism then anything else. Hell, during WW2 Stalin supported the Russian Orthodox Church, though used it as a political device to up morale of the Russian people. But shows that it wasn't a strong athiestic ideology, I doubt the opposite would be true with the church putting their faith into a Athiest leader of some sorts.

 

Hm. I think the analysis is fair, but I also think that some religious governments would do the same, if threatened. At the fall of Constantinople, "Can you hold a spear?" probably wasn't prefaced by "You're not one of those Latin heretics, are you?" (Although technically, as I recall, the Paleologai were Romanists themselves; you take my point, even so.) I think it has more to do with the human condition than with any particular ideology. Once again, there may be a difference of degree, but I doubt one of kind.

 

-Akolouthos

 

For me, atheism is an incidental quality of communism; that is to say that it is not necessary for the rest of the philosophy to hold together. In essence, it is simply a value that has generally been attached to the particular form of communism that dominated the twentieth century. Thus, as I see it, the communists persecuted Christians because they were viewed as anti-Communist, and used their theism as a further justification. Still, people were martyred for their faith, and their status as believers was a cause for scorn, which is the essence of the question for me, theist that I am -- though it is not surprising in light of Christ's warnings about this sort of thing. It may not be so for you; I think we are simply focusing on different parts of the same issue.

 

I'll admit, you guys have shown me the errors in my thinking, but it's difficult to accept something like this when theirs already a label that stains your image for being who you are. If I were to tell someone I was athiest, I may not be trusted for it. It's more easy for people to accept the idea of athiest being militant because of the bad name we have. But I can see there's no way I'm going to win this up hill battle, because now I'm starting to see your arguement more clearly!

 

If it makes you feel any better, I am often wary of the reaction which I will receive for calling myself a Christian -- though I am proud of it, and would never eschew it. Keep in mind that I used to be a vehement agnostic, and my choice of friends still reflects this. If you are the odd man out over there, take solace in knowing that I am so over here. While you may feel that others think you duplicitous, or a bad influence because of your atheism, I am often viewed as na�ve or unintelligent because of my Christianity. Perhaps we should engage in some sort of friend exchange.  I jest, of course; I truly do love all of my friends dearly.

 

-Akolouthos

 

This is the a larger excerpt which contains that famous saying. It's not about seduction, but about illusion, about finding happiness in an unhappy world. Basically if one follows Marx closely must conclude that in a truly happy society religion must disappear.

 

The transition should be smooth and gradual, and come from within. All humans are born with a potential for rational thought, nurturing this potential will bring forth an internal need for enlightenment.

There were such initiatives in the Communist block as well. The existence of Churches infilitrated from within represents a step from a smooth and gradual transition. Those communists insisting on a fast revolutionary change of the face of the world were opposed by other communists which with patience waited the world to see the potential of the communism (rational thought, enlightenment) and instead adopted long-term strategies. This type of discourse is so alike with the practice experienced already under Communism that I only can wonder how well I have chosen my example for why militant atheism is harmful.

Any "humanity will eventually see my ideas are right" bears a mark of fanatism and intolerance and sets the stage for totalitarian outbursts. If you don't assume your ideas might be wrong and other people will continue to believe what they want, then freedom as we know it cannot exist.

 

The problem at hand here is verifying religious ideas with empirical method, which is, as has been proven too many times already, a waste of time.

Because the method was flawed in so many cases. Science addresses specific questions, not knowledge, in general. But the limits of scientific knowledge were discussed over and over in so many threads.

 

Says you.  I don't see that as a problem at all; there are many types of knowledge, Reginmund.

 

And epistemological theory is precisely what we need to be talking about, unless you simply expect me to trust you to determine which types of knowledge are important, and which types of knowledge aren't really knowledge at all. Should I also trust you to determine how to define "the proper deductive method"? You seem to want me to place a bit of -- pardon -- faith in your ability to arrive at the proper conclusion before we have even established the premises; I fail to see what is properly deductive about that.

 

-Akolouthos