QuoteReplyTopic: Confronting Militant Atheism Posted: 18-Jan-2008 at 13:18
Originally posted by Reginmund
Smart people.
The stereotype is merely a tool. This is how militant ideologues condone and even promote shameless discrimination (ethnic - Jews, religious - Muslims and even simply ideological - Communists).
There is no point in listening to a man who doesn't even believe in himself.
You seem not to differentiate between believing in yourself and blindly believing that you are right and promote to others your flawed views. The irony is, the science you worship as true knowledge, reclaims that no fact is certain.
Empirical method is at present the most applicable way of verifying or falsifying claims, and so we will stick with until epistemology is revolutionised, which I don't believe will happen anytime soon.
You revolve in circles. If I have said the empirical method is flawed, that means I have said empirical verification is flawed as a method for some beliefs. In case you have no idea what epistemology is, here's a brief for you:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ (please note a) empirical method is not the only way to produce justified knowledge and b) there are specific questions of religious epistemology)
And here you have other two links from a recent discussion I had with Cezar which basically show you that some religious beliefs may be epistemically justifiable (in other words they constitute knowledge - there's no point in requiring them to be empirically proven):
There seem to be a general agreement that atheism cannot be seen as a doctrine. If agnosticism is also integrated in atheism then certainly we do have a lot of concepts about existance that basically share one common idea: non-faith.
Why integrate agnosticism? Just because you want to rally a campaign against the faithful (the Other)?
There are individuals that are actively engaged in actions to promote the atheist ideas. The "scientific atheism" promoted by in Romania is an example of what could be considered a form of militant atheism. But the point is that "scientific atheism" in itself is not a doctrine or an ideology all by itself. It's a component of the communist doctrine. It's like saying that Catholic Christianity is only going to church every Sunday.
No, is like saying Millenarism is a doctrine some Christian branches share. There're lots of Christian doctrines, not only one. Atheism is not a monolith, militant atheism is not one, nor Christianity or the Communism. But we can find common beliefs. There are no preset boundaries to define doctrines, doctrines get defined through campaigns, movements, channels, propaganda, etc.. Thus in Communism an atheistic doctrine got shape. You're just promoting the same denial along this discussion. The propagandistic materials used by Communist atheistic organizations had titles like "The Atheist Guide" not the "Young Revolutionary Guide".
As far as I see it the "militant atheists" are only acting based on the principle of freedom of thought, expression and choice.
On the contrary, the militant atheists (I repeat, like any militant ideologues) ignore the principles of freedom and choice. If Dawkins or Reginmund pontificate that conversion to atheism is iminent, where's the freedom and the choice? According to them the people have two choices: to be irrational or atheists. I.e. be with us or go to world's trash bin. This is no choice.
Why integrate agnosticism? Just because you want to rally a campaign against the faithful (the Other)?
Actually the militant religious integrate all non-faithful in a single category. In some variants this includes also religious people different than them. Heathen is something like that.
No, is like saying Millenarism is a doctrine some Christian branches share. There're lots of Christian doctrines, not only one. Atheism is not a monolith, militant atheism is not one, nor Christianity or the Communism. But we can find common beliefs. There are no preset boundaries to define doctrines, doctrines get defined through campaigns, movements, channels, propaganda, etc.. Thus in Communism an atheistic doctrine got shape. You're just promoting the same denial along this discussion. The propagandistic materials used by Communist atheistic organizations had titles like "The Atheist Guide" not the "Young Revolutionary Guide".
Ok, Chilbudios, why don't you give a definition of militant atheism that can be universally accepted? I see none, maybe you can enlighten me.
On the contrary, the militant atheists (I repeat, like any militant ideologues) ignore the principles of freedom and choice. If Dawkins or Reginmund pontificate that conversion to atheism is iminent, where's the freedom and the choice? According to them the people have two choices: to be irrational or atheists. I.e. be with us or go to world's trash bin. This is no choice.
Actually they say that there is no choice in the same way that you have no choice when you're going to die. They just see religion as something going to it's extinction.
As a side note to your observation: if I'm militating for the freedom and choice, which according to you makes me a militant ideologue, then I ignore the principles of freedom and choice, don't I?
Actually the militant religious integrate all non-faithful in a single category. In some variants this includes also religious people different than them. Heathen is something like that.
So what? The parallels you draw between militant atheism and militant religious organizations only show how dangerous the former is.
Ok, Chilbudios, why don't you give a definition of militant atheism that can be universally accepted? I see none, maybe you can enlighten me.
I assume both "militant" and "atheism" are defined in every dictionary, I'm not seeking for any hidden meanings.
Actually they say that there is no choice in the same way that you have no choice when you're going to die. They just see religion as something going to it's extinction.
As a side note to your observation: if I'm militating for the freedom and choice, which according to you makes me a militant ideologue, then I ignore the principles of freedom and choice, don't I?
Does "freedom fighter" ring any bell? Freedom and choice come with an entire culture, an entire system of thought and awareness, you cannot take a medieval world and give them 21st century Western "freedom" without destroying that world (and in the process to miss the actual freedom those people really needed).
As for the pontificated extinction it's not a scientific prediction but the result of propaganda and various forms of cleansing (more or less brutal).
So what? The parallels you draw between militant atheism and militant religious organizations only show how dangerous the former is.
Have you read the starting post? The parallel was is drawn by a religious nutcase. If someone is religious I don't mind. I can contradict him in a discussion and he can contradict me. That's not militant from either side.
Ok, Chilbudios, why don't you give a definition of militant atheism that can be universally accepted? I see none, maybe you can enlighten me.
I assume both "militant" and "atheism" are defined in every dictionary, I'm not seeking for any hidden meanings.
So militant atheism is just the result of the association of two terms in the dictionary?[quote
Actually they say that there is no choice in the same way that you have no choice when you're going to die. They just see religion as something going to it's extinction.
As a side note to your observation: if I'm militating for the freedom and choice, which according to you makes me a militant ideologue, then I ignore the principles of freedom and choice, don't I?
Does "freedom fighter" ring any bell? Freedom and choice come with an entire culture, an entire system of thought and awareness, you cannot take a medieval world and give them 21st century Western "freedom" without destroying that world (and in the process to miss the actual freedom those people really needed).[/quote]
I don't know what do you mean. You seem answer some another question not mine.
As for the pontificated extinction it's not a scientific prediction but the result of propaganda and various forms of cleansing (more or less brutal).
So if I state that the Sun is going to die, (turn into a white dwarf) then I'm making propaganda and stellar cleansing?
Have you read the starting post? The parallel was is drawn by a religious nutcase. If someone is religious I don't mind. I can contradict him in a discussion and he can contradict me. That's not militant from either side.
We were not talking about the starting post, nor am I talking about bringing arguments in a discussion. This thread of replies springs from a "if we integrate agnosticism ..." (read back to see how it evolved).
So militant atheism is just the result of the association of two terms in the dictionary?
Should I explain you the grammar? (it's a noun + an adjective, in case you wonder)
I don't know what do you mean. You seem answer some another question not mine.
I precisely answered your question. There are already "freedom fighters" and we know who they are and what they do. We've also seen wars waged in the name of the freedom. So, why give me the "ifs" instead of the facts?
You cannot be a militant for an abstract concept of free choice because that is a self-contradictory position, propaganda influences the choices, thus they are not free.
So if I state that the Sun is going to die, (turn into a white dwarf) then I'm making propaganda and stellar cleansing?
The deaths of the stars is a scientific theory. That world will become atheistic one day is a dream of some heated minds wishing all the world to share their ideals of progress and welfare. .
The deaths of the stars is a scientific theory. That world will become atheistic one day is a dream of some heated minds wishing all the world to share their ideals of progress and welfare. .
Good comment!! It is only a pipe dream and man will always believe in deity. The Chinese communist tried to destroy Christianity and it only grew all the more. Everywhere man has tried to stomp out religious beliefs it has only grown.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Everywhere man has tried to stomp out religious beliefs it has only grown.
Not just religion, I think when people are oppressed by any ideology, the natural feeling is resisitence towards it.
Though I agree faith will never die out, I believe new religions will take hold and/or atleast fluctuate. I think Christianity held the mantel for the fastest growing religion, but despite bad press it seems Islam has taken the throne as the fastest growing of the Abrahamic Religions in the world.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Everywhere man has tried to stomp out religious beliefs it has only grown.
Not just religion, I think when people are oppressed by any ideology, the natural feeling is resisitence towards it.
Though I agree faith will never die out, I believe new religions will take hold and/or atleast fluctuate. I think Christianity held the mantel for the fastest growing religion, but despite bad press it seems Islam has taken the throne as the fastest growing of the Abrahamic Religions in the world.
I agree someday new beliefs will sprout and replace the old or at least compete. Maybe some of the old pagan Greco/Roman beliefs will recycle- lol!!
I will have to search for proof but some groups claim Christianity is the fatest growing religion but It really doesn't matter to me. I can look it up if you want though.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Well I'm not really concerned which one is really growing faster personally. But I have heard that Islam is the fastest growing, and the point is a single religion doesn't seem to last, like everything else, it seems to peak and decline. I'd suspect that it will probably resurge again, but probably not as much as it once was. The old pagan religions do seem to be coming back, but I don't think they'll ever have the strength to effect culture again.
I think the Abrahamic religions will just keep evolving, I don't think the multiple gods model will ever come back, but thats my opinion.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Have you read the starting post? The parallel was is drawn by a religious nutcase. If someone is religious I don't mind. I can contradict him in a discussion and he can contradict me. That's not militant from either side.
We were not talking about the starting post, nor am I talking about bringing arguments in a discussion. This thread of replies springs from a "if we integrate agnosticism ..." (read back to see how it evolved).
Really? You do read my posts, don't you. Check it yourself I wrote "If agnosticism is also integrated...". My humble knowledge of English.
So militant atheism is just the result of the association of two terms in the dictionary?
Should I explain you the grammar? (it's a noun + an adjective, in case you wonder)
According to you, communism is merely a noun, so is religion, faith, atheism, etc.
I don't know what do you mean. You seem answer some another question not mine.
I precisely answered your question. There are already "freedom fighters" and we know who they are and what they do. We've also seen wars waged in the name of the freedom. So, why give me the "ifs" instead of the facts?
You cannot be a militant for an abstract concept of free choice because that is a self-contradictory position, propaganda influences the choices, thus they are not free.
So militating for unrestricted freedom restricts me to unrestricted freedom.
So if I state that the Sun is going to die, (turn into a white dwarf) then I'm making propaganda and stellar cleansing?
The deaths of the stars is a scientific theory. That world will become atheistic one day is a dream of some heated minds wishing all the world to share their ideals of progress and welfare. .
Marx and Engels presented a scientific theory regarding society. The ideology derived from it is something different. Richard Dawkings does try to use science when he predicts the dissapeareance of religion. He also promotes atheism in the name of reason not in the name of atheism. He didn't wrote a book called "The Atheist Manifest". Science and scientific theoryes are and have been used as the reason of some ideas or ideologyes.
There in no "militant homosexuality" yet there are militant homosexuals. They do not attempt to convert everyone to their behaviour they just want to be recognized as our equals.
"Scientific atheism" was created by the communists precisely because atheism, all by itself, doesn't provide a functional ideological basis. If you had the curiosity of reading the doctrine you should have noticed that it was constructed in a circular logic.
I repeat, communism, as an ideology or a doctrine, justifies istelf through science. Also a fundamental concept is that religion, meaning organized religion, is a tool for controlling the people. Since atheism is obviously a perfect justification to dismantle organized religion its also a tool to impose the communism. Since Lenin, communism was a militant, even agressive ideology. Marx class strugle was redeifined as direct and ruthless confrontation. This automaticly turns every communist into a militant, that also makes him a militant atheist among other.
Really? You do read my posts, don't you. Check it yourself I wrote "If agnosticism is also integrated...". My humble knowledge of English.
Oh snap, I've misquoted Cezar and his ego is now revolting
According to you, communism is merely a noun, so is religion, faith, atheism, etc.
Yes they are all nouns, but not merely. If you have no other arguments beside trolling I'd just quit the discussion.
So militating for unrestricted freedom restricts me to unrestricted freedom.
Huh?
Marx and Engels presented a scientific theory regarding society. The ideology derived from it is something different. Richard Dawkings does try to use science when he predicts the dissapeareance of religion.
For Marx is true, for Dawkings not. Marx developed a historicist theory where Communist followed by necessity (though he eventually was proved wrong), Dawkings is merely fantasizing about people converting to atheism after reading his books.
He also promotes atheism in the name of reason not in the name of atheism. He didn't wrote a book called "The Atheist Manifest". Science and scientific theoryes are and have been used as the reason of some ideas or ideologyes.
Dawkins clearly described himself and his actions as militant atheistic.
There in no "militant homosexuality" yet there are militant homosexuals. They do not attempt to convert everyone to their behaviour they just want to be recognized as our equals.
You're making a confusion between a minority militating for rights and a group militating for beliefs. Homosexuals do not attack heterosexuals for their sexual orientation (like militant atheists attack religion). Dawkins doesn't want believers and non-believers to coexist happily together, but the former to fade from the history of humanity.
"Scientific atheism" was created by the communists precisely because atheism, all by itself, doesn't provide a functional ideological basis. If you had the curiosity of reading the doctrine you should have noticed that it was constructed in a circular logic.
There's no more circularity in "scientific atheism" than in "atheism" or "science". "Scientific atheism" was actually an attack against religion in the spirit of d'Holbach, Feuerbach, Marx (though with arguments a bit updated: i.e. "Gagarin was in space and he found no god there") which aimed to tell the people two things: a) science is the only true way to know, b) by science we can find no god, there god doesn't exist
I repeat, communism, as an ideology or a doctrine, justifies istelf through science. Also a fundamental concept is that religion, meaning organized religion, is a tool for controlling the people. Since atheism is obviously a perfect justification to dismantle organized religion its also a tool to impose the communism.
You repeat in vain, no one is challenging that. Only that militant atheism was a distinctive component of the Communist regimes as proven already in the thread.
Anyway, "militant atheism" is a nonsense.
Denial. You're so .... religious about protecting "atheism"
Really? You do read my posts, don't you. Check it yourself I wrote "If agnosticism is also integrated...". My humble knowledge of English.
Oh snap, I've misquoted Cezar and his ego is now revolting
I was just wondering if you reply to what I'm posting or to what you think I'm posting
According to you, communism is merely a noun, so is religion, faith, atheism, etc.
Yes they are all nouns, but not merely. If you have no other arguments beside trolling I'd just quit the discussion.
I'll rephrase it: do you think grammar is the only thing to use in definning an ideology?[qoute]
So militating for unrestricted freedom restricts me to unrestricted freedom.
Huh? [/quote] What?
Marx and Engels presented a scientific theory regarding society. The ideology derived from it is something different. Richard Dawkings does try to use science when he predicts the dissapeareance of religion.
For Marx is true, for Dawkings not. Marx developed a historicist theory where Communist followed by necessity (though he eventually was proved wrong), Dawkings is merely fantasizing about people converting to atheism after reading his books.
Marx was fantasizing about people converting to communism after reading his books. Dawkings does not describe his work as pure literature or pure science. He attempts to "convert" people to atheism using scientific arguments. I don't say he's right or wrong, that's not the point of this discussion. He's a militant atheist but he doesn't create an atheist doctrine. He does, indeed, urges people to give up their religion. If you read his book you will notice that he concentrates on Abrahamic religions. And he states that deism or pantheism are religions that are not wrong. Also, he focuses mainly on the fact taht religion is dangerous because it restricts both freedom and mind and breeds intolerance.
There in no "militant homosexuality" yet there are militant homosexuals. They do not attempt to convert everyone to their behaviour they just want to be recognized as our equals.
You're making a confusion between a minority militating for rights and a group militating for beliefs. Homosexuals do not attack heterosexuals for their sexual orientation (like militant atheists attack religion). Dawkins doesn't want believers and non-believers to coexist happily together, but the former to fade from the history of humanity.
No he wants the believers to fall into the history of humanity. Anway, what's the atheist group militating for their belief?
"Scientific atheism" was created by the communists precisely because atheism, all by itself, doesn't provide a functional ideological basis. If you had the curiosity of reading the doctrine you should have noticed that it was constructed in a circular logic.
There's no more circularity in "scientific atheism" than in "atheism" or "science". "Scientific atheism" was actually an attack against religion in the spirit of d'Holbach, Feuerbach, Marx (though with arguments a bit updated: i.e. "Gagarin was in space and he found no god there") which aimed to tell the people two things: a) science is the only true way to know, b) by science we can find no god, there god doesn't exist
How's atheism circular? Or science? Off course "scientific atheism" was against religion, I didn't stated anything different. I actually stated that communism was against religion so they used "atheism" and "science" for promoting their ideology.
The case for atheism as a kind of belief -- the belief in the nonexistence of God -- was championed by no less a figure than J.M. Robertson, the great historian of freethought. Robertson argued that any "ism," including atheism, implies that we are dealing with a positive belief or doctrine, not a simple privation. Contrary to Robertson's view, "-ism" can mean something other than a doctrine or belief; it can mean "a state or condition" as well. Thus, the privative definition of atheism is still possible. Atheism as the absence of belief can denote an "ism" -- a state of mind in which theistic belief is absent.(...)
Or perhaps atheists can fall back on the rule of fundamentality, which says that a definition should identify the fundamental, or essential, attribute of the concept being defined. Obviously, the absence of theistic belief is more fundamental than the denial of theism, for the latter is a subset of the former. (One who denies the existence of God also lacks belief, but the reverse is not necessarily true: one who lacks belief in God does not necessarily deny its existence.)
According to this reasoning, one who denies God's existence is a legitimate atheist, but he subscribes to a particular species of atheism. If, however, we construe atheism as the denial of God's existence, then the person who merely lacks theistic belief is not a real atheist, but an imposter. This exclusion by definition, it seems to me, is ungracious, and it shows ignorance of what important atheists have argued for many years.
I repeat, communism, as an ideology or a doctrine, justifies istelf through science. Also a fundamental concept is that religion, meaning organized religion, is a tool for controlling the people. Since atheism is obviously a perfect justification to dismantle organized religion its also a tool to impose the communism.
You repeat in vain, no one is challenging that. Only that militant atheism was a distinctive component of the Communist regimes as proven already in the thread.
Only that atheism was a distinctive component. Promoted by communists who were militant atheists, among other things.
Anyway, "militant atheism" is a nonsense.
Denial. You're so .... religious about protecting "atheism"
I'll rephrase it: "Militant atheism" is an inconsitent term. Be it positive or negative, atheism is consistent. The positive atheism, the one does states firmly: "God is=false" has nothing to prove. So, there's no goal to achieve. Negative atheism and/or agnosticism are based on various levels of incertitude regarding "God is". Therefore they too don't define a goal.
Communism has a goal. Religion(s) have a goal. Atheism hasn't. It can't be defined as militant.
I was just wondering if you reply to what I'm posting or to what you think I'm posting
If you have such serious problems why don't you muse on them a bit more before replying to me?
I'll rephrase it: do you think grammar is the only thing to use in definning an ideology?
I'm not sharing your interest in trolling.
What?
I was simply offering you a chance to rephrase a non-sensical claim.
Marx was fantasizing about people converting to communism after reading his books.
You have no idea what Marx wrote.
does not describe his work as pure literature or pure science. He attempts to "convert" people to atheism using scientific arguments.
Mocking religion does not qualify for science just because its author believes that.
He's a militant atheist but he doesn't create an atheist doctrine.
Why? He doesn't have a written authorization from the president? Look, that's a contradiction in terms, to be militant in the name of a belief requires a doctrine (it requires a system of beliefs and a principial value assigned to at least some of them, otherwise the militancy cannot be performed).
And he states that deism or pantheism are religions that are not wrong.
Both deny theism in their way.
Anway, what's the atheist group militating for their belief?
I've already provided examples you conveniently ignored. I have no problem in finding few more examples because the internet is full of:
That's a basic epistemological fact. How one justifies science? If he chooses science, he'll be guilty of circular reasoning. Without metaphyics the justifications will end up in being circular.
But this was not what I have said anyway. I have said that scientific atheism is as circular as its components (science and atheism). Depending on your take on them (rooted in metaphysics or not), the result will be changed accordingly
Here is a link and a quote to someplace you might like
That link is missing the point. We're not talking about atheism, but about militant atheism. Maybe in exchange you'd like a quote from John Dewey, a 20th century American philosopher:
One reason why personally I think it fitting to use the word God to denote that uniting of the ideal and actual which has been spoken of, lies in the fact that aggressive atheism seems to me to have something in common with traditional supernaturalism. I do not mean merely that the former is mainly so negative that it fails to give positive direction to thought, though that fact is pertinent. What I have in mind especially is the exclusive preoccupation of both militant atheism and supernaturalism with humanity in isolation. For in spite of supernaturalisms reference to something beyond nature, it conceived of this earth as the moral center of the universe and of human beings as the apex of the whole scheme of things. It regards the drama of sin and redemption enacted within the isolated and lonely soul as the one thing of ultimate importance. Apart from humanity, nature is held either accursed or negligible. Militant atheism is also affected by lack of natural piety. The ties binding us to nature that poets have always celebrated are passed over lightly. The attitude taken is often that of our living in an indifferent and hostile world and issuing blasts of defiance. A religious attitude, however, needs the sense of our connection, in the way of both dependence and support, with the enveloping world that the imagination feels is a universe. Use of the words God or divine to convey the union of actual and ideal may protect human beings from a sense of isolation and from consequent despair or defiance. A humanistic religion, if it excludes our relation to nature, is pale and thin, as it is presumptuous, when it takes humanity as an object of worship.
I'll rephrase it: "Militant atheism" is an inconsitent term. Be it positive or negative, atheism is consistent. The positive atheism, the one does states firmly: "God is=false" has nothing to prove. So, there's no goal to achieve. Negative atheism and/or agnosticism are based on various levels of incertitude regarding "God is". Therefore they too don't define a goal.
Communism has a goal. Religion(s) have a goal. Atheism hasn't. It can't be defined as militant.
Communist groups of atheistic propagnda had a goal. Dawkins has a goal. Atheism doesn't have a goal, but militant atheism has.
You seem not to differentiate between believing in yourself and blindly believing that you are right and promote to others your flawed views. The irony is, the science you worship as true knowledge, reclaims that no fact is certain.
There is no irony, you simply misunderstand my use of "verification", which is entirely orthodox. When I say something is verified I do not mean to say it's what you would call certain fact, but that it is more likely to be true than the alternatives. That is what we must relate to, and that's the trumph card of atheism.
There is no irony, you simply misunderstand my use of "verification", which is entirely orthodox. When I say something is verified I do not mean to say it's what you would call certain fact, but that it is more likely to be true than the alternatives. That is what we must relate to, and that's the trumph card of atheism.
Since the foundational bricks of science cannot be verified, what "likelier truths" are out there? The strength of the science relies in the fact it can be corrected, not verified. Thus verification becomes a method to find errors, not truths, and we hold as truth what is not yet proved to be erroneous.
The atheistic belief is doomed to be a non-empirical one (since the lack of gods cannot be perceived in any way, nor can we browse exhaustively the universe / universes? in the search for one). Many empiricists are actually agnostics (e.g. Huxley) because empiricism drives people to draw conclusions upon the things they have experimented, not upon the things they haven't.
C'mon Chilbudios, even those links you provided are about militant atheists not militant atheism.
Here's a better one: http://www.atheists.org, and a definition of what atheism is taken from there:
Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are super natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.
The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.
Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now here on earth for all men together to enjoy.
An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.
He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.
He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.
There you are! A "doctrine" for atheists. I wonder if it can be considered militant atheism. Though it does appear to be a definition of atheism. I'm confused, could atheism and militant atheism be the same?
Maybe you mistake antitheism with atheism. The former is militant.
C'mon Chilbudios, even those links you provided are about militant atheists not militant atheism.
You have asked for militant atheist groups which I have provided. Don't blame me for your own incoherencies.
Here's a better one
Not about militant atheists/atheism, hence a red herring.
Maybe you mistake antitheism with atheism. The former is militant.
Antitheism is another name for militant atheism. You're the one mistaking militant atheism with atheism, though I have signaled you repeatedly about the difference.
Chibudios, all that I have found was atheism. Not militant atheism. I've found militant atheists, indeed. They invoke atheism as their belief/doctrine or whatever. Indeed those links are relatet to militant atheists but all they state is that they are militating for atheism. I was browsing those sites before I've read your post.
The topic, related to Brian's firs post was using the term "militant atheism". I'm saying that there is no such thing. Antitheism is not just another name for militant atheism. Even wiki provides some useful info regarding the differences.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Confronting Militant Atheism
