Militant Atheism on believing in religion

[The Man]

Do Militant Atheists believe that we should ban all Worship of Religion? Do they believe in banning of places of worship?

[NGNM85]

Do Militant Atheists believe that we should ban all Worship of Religion? Do they believe in banning of places of worship?

First of all, nine-tenths of this crap about 'militant atheism' is complete nonsense.

Second, while I think I've established myself as one of the most outspoken atheists and anti-theists on the forum, I also want to be clear that I am equally vehement in my passion for civil rights. While I deplore religion and the effect it has on the world, I firmly support the right of the sorcerers, mystics, other assorted charlatans and their multitude of followers to promulgate their various brands of poisonous idiocy.

[Tablo]

Anti-theists of the authoritarian variety would be the ones banning places of worship. Most members of this board would oppose that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you want to get rid of religion, simply banning it is ineffective, even counter-productive. Transgressors become heroes and martyrs, and that's the last thing you want. I believe there's somewhat of an inverse correlation between education and religiosity, so ensuring that as many people as possible get the best education available seems likely to work. The Jesuits had the right kind of idea - "give me the boy and I'll give you the man" and all that. So it is of utmost importance that children are taught from a young age the necessary tools of critical thinking and reasoned skepticism. Exposure to the myths and beliefs of religions other than the socially dominant ones would also help, especially if dead religions such as that of the ancient Greeks are included.

People who wish to eliminate religion must also be prepared to point out that the ludicrous privilege in society that faith - ie, belief without evidence - enjoys even in these relatively secular times.

[B5C]

We don't want to bad religion. We just want it to die off or not make it as popular. Like back in the Enlightenment age. The only time we are militant is when religion is step on our rights.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We don't want to bad religion. We just want it to die off or not make it as popular. Like back in the Enlightenment age.

Actually, the average person during the Enlightenment period was probably just as religious as today, if not more so. While the products of Enlightenment thought are valuable and necessary, they originated from a stratum of society that was lucky enough to be better educated than average.

[The Man]

So what are your guys thoughts on how to eradicate religion without banning it, or actually penalizing people because of it?

[NecroCommie]

How did we get rid of defenders of slavery? Basically defending and proposing slavery is not banned in any way in anywhere. Still you can't really run into one, because saying such things means social suicide.

The idea is to make the atheist arguments and reasoning easy to grasp, clear, obvious and popular. After that human sociology takes care of the rest.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So what are your guys thoughts on how to eradicate religion without banning it, or actually penalizing people because of it?

Like I said, based on current evidence and the lessons of history, an approach focused on improving education for the young, making sure that, through exposure to unfamiliar religions, nobody gets a completely one-sided picture (most heavily religious types seems to have been brought up in their own little sealed bubble) and the promotion and promulgation of what I believe now to be absolutely essential critical thinking skills.

In fact, I think it's as important as reading and writing. Without critical thinking skills, one is intellectually defenceless. Which is why it is especially heinous that religion is spoonfed to children as if it were fact.

[Broletariat]

So what are your guys thoughts on how to eradicate religion without banning it, or actually penalizing people because of it?

Like Marx said, removing the cause of religion will largely rid us of religion.

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

[T-Paine]

If you want to get rid of religion, simply banning it is ineffective, even counter-productive. Transgressors become heroes and martyrs, and that's the last thing you want.

This. Religious views are always enforced when they are discriminated against. When people are given free choice and listen to the debates, over time more and more favor rational views. The best way to get rid of religion is just to leave it alone while promoting free thought.

[B5C]

Actually, the average person during the Enlightenment period was probably just as religious as today, if not more so. While the products of Enlightenment thought are valuable and necessary, they originated from a stratum of society that was lucky enough to be better educated than average.

True, most people of Enlightenment were e Deists who disliked organized religion.

You also have to accept that modern Atheism and the Free Thinkers of the 1800s came out of the Enlightenment age from those like Baron d'Holbach.

[Viet Minh]

There's no reason religion shouldn't last forever, as long as they don't infringe upon others rights. Besides, religion keeps the lunatics off the streets

[psgchisolm]

There's no reason religion shouldn't last forever, as long as they don't infringe upon others rights. Besides, religion keeps the lunatics off the streets
:laugh: No it doesn't. I wish it were so, but this hasn't been the case in how many centuries?

[Viet Minh]

:laugh: No it doesn't. I wish it were so, but this hasn't been the case in how many centuries?

If you wanted all religions destroyed, all you have to do is give them all guns.

[hatzel]

If you wanted all religions destroyed, all you have to do is give them all guns.

Or just give everyone guns, and then there won't even be any people left to be religious :scared:

[Viet Minh]

Or just give everyone guns, and then there won't even be any people left to be religious :scared:

truedat, but atheists will win, because they won't be taking risks thinking god will save them!

[Che a chara]

http://i52.tinypic.com/jso6zk.jpg

I wouldn't agree with the above militant like approach during any future revolution.

I'd hope a separation of religion and state would be enough for even the most staunch atheist. If religion is removed from society, it should be phased out on its own by it's lack of need in a developed socialist society, not forced out.

[ComradeMan]

Why doesn't everyone just mind their own business in a sense?

I am not a fan of religious fanatics nor much of organised religion. On the other hand this militant atheism that seeks to attack and ridicule all the time is tantamount to a medieval witchhunt in itself. It's also very often based on a very superfluous and perhaps badly informed idea of what a lot of religions are about....

[hatzel]

truedat, but atheists will win, because they won't be taking risks thinking god will save them!

Unless you believe it's impossible to win a war by playing safe. I'd say there's a real possibility the risk-takers might come out on top :)

[ComradeMan]

Unless you believe it's impossible to win a war by playing safe. I'd say there's a real possibility the risk-takers might come out on top :)

audaces fortuna iuvat timidosque repellit

"Fortune favours the brave and repells the fearful"

[Rjevan]

...I also want to be clear that I am equally vehement in my passion for civil rights. While I deplore religion and the effect it has on the world, I firmly support the right [...] to promulgate their various brands of poisonous idiocy.
What you say here seems like a contradiction to me. You suggest that religion has a negative effect "on the world" and is not just harmless idiocy but "poisonous". Why would you defend the (inherent? God-given?) "right" of its followers to spread it if you are firmly convinced that it's bad and dangerous for humanity and doing harm to the world? And moreover: wouldn't this stance expand to far more dangerous and poisonous world-views than religion?

I agree that education is our best weapon and that a state-declared end of religion like it happened in Albania is counter-productive. But this doesn't mean that I have to defend any "right" to spread reactionary views.

[Revolution starts with U]

I am not a fan of religious fanatics nor much of organised religion. On the other hand this militant atheism that seeks to attack and ridicule all the time is tantamount to a medieval witchhunt in itself. It's also very often based on a very superfluous and perhaps badly informed idea of what a lot of religions are about....

Oh fuck off. My making fun of you for believing in a sky wizard, or even some douchebag shouting vehemently about how evil religion is, is not tantamount to burning people at the stake and other various "witch tests."
Some atheists may uninformed fuckwads, but narry a one of them wants to cut your head off for worshipping a wizard.=
:thumbdown:



What you say here seems like a contradiction to me. You suggest that religion has a negative effect "on the world" and is not just harmless idiocy but "poisonous". Why would you defend the (inherent? God-given?) "right" of its followers to spread it if you are firmly convinced that it's bad and dangerous for humanity and doing harm to the world? And moreover: wouldn't this stance expand to far more dangerous and poisonous world-views than religion?

I agree that education is our best weapon and that a state-declared end of religion like it happened in Albania is counter-productive. But this doesn't mean that I have to defend any "right" to spread reactionary views.


"Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." ~Confucius
(Spare me the "draw upon religion" trype :lol:)

[NGNM85]

What you say here seems like a contradiction to me.

It isn’t.


You suggest that religion has a negative effect "on the world" and is not just harmless idiocy but "poisonous".

I think that’s a very sound assessment. However, you don’t seem to be contesting this point, so I will assume we’re agreed.



Why would you defend the (inherent? God-given?) "right" of its followers to spread it if you are firmly convinced that it's bad and dangerous for humanity and doing harm to the world? And moreover: wouldn't this stance expand to far more dangerous and poisonous world-views than religion?

I agree that education is our best weapon and that a state-declared end of religion like it happened in Albania is counter-productive. But this doesn't mean that I have to defend any "right" to spread reactionary views.

Believing in a supernatural daddy figure is not an essential prerequisite for respecting human rights. There is no fundamental connection there.

Well, it depends how you look at it. Anarchists, like myself, have traditionally taken civil rights very seriously. If you believe free expression, either A; because it’s a basic human right, or B; because it’s the most fundamental component of democracy, without it, democracy isn’t even possible. (This is predicated on the presumption that we both believe in democracy.) Now, supporting freedom of expression means supporting it for ideas you absolutely despise. This argument that you fully support people being able to speak their minds as long as they espouse authorized opinions is just totally bogus. Hitler endorsed that kind of ‘freedom.’ That’s, essentially, a fascist standard. I’ve made no secret how I feel about religious rhetoric. There’s all sorts of static out there that I object to; White Supremacist groups, NAMBLA, virtually everything on the Fox network, etc., etc. Hell, I think half the people on this forum are borderline certifiable. However, I would take a bullet to preserve a free space where they can spew their respective brands of horseshit without fear of being brutalized for it.

I’m perfectly aware, and have attested to, the obvious link between crazy ideas and crazy actions. You don’t have to be a fucking rocket scientist to see the connection, there. However, until they actually do cross that line, between thought and action, and actually infringe upon the rights of others, that’s it. There’s really no other option, unless you’re comfortable with persecuting people simply for communicating ideas, or for actions they might commit, which is another way of saying persecuting them for things they haven’t done. I really don’t see how any legitimate Leftist, any legitimate Socialist, especially, could be perfectly comfortable with either of those propositions.

Lastly, when you stoop to censorship you cede the field to the enemy. If you actually do have better ideas then have enough faith in them, and in yourself, to duke it out on the battlefield of ideas. Most of the really poisonous ideologies, neo-Nazism, fundamentalist religion, etc., collapse under even a cursory analysis. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, these ideas actually thrive under the cover of darkness.

[Milk Sheikh]

Militant atheism is inevitable, and religious folks must stop complaining. For centuries upon centuries, religion has mingled with practically everything - social life, politics, arts, science, you name it. Religion was the king, so to speak, and its word was undisputed.

Now things are changing, and religious people are complaining about not being able to discriminate against others anymore. That's what this whole thing is about: religious folks want a free pass.

Not gonna happen. Religion is the greatest curse upon humanity; even capitalism isn't half as bad. Even in capitalism, at least changes can be made, reforms can be done, there is something for the workers, some hope or happiness. In religion, there is torture and threat of force, no freedom, no equality, nothing. It's so irrational and uncompromising in its views that even capitalism looks benign by contrast.

[ComradeMan]

Militant atheism is inevitable, and religious folks must stop complaining. For centuries upon centuries, religion has mingled with practically everything - social life, politics, arts, science, you name it. Religion was the king, so to speak, and its word was undisputed.

Now things are changing, and religious people are complaining about not being able to discriminate against others anymore. That's what this whole thing is about: religious folks want a free pass.

Not gonna happen. Religion is the greatest curse upon humanity; even capitalism isn't half as bad. Even in capitalism, at least changes can be made, reforms can be done, there is something for the workers, some hope or happiness. In religion, there is torture and threat of force, no freedom, no equality, nothing. It's so irrational and uncompromising in its views that even capitalism looks benign by contrast.

Utter crap from start to finish.

[ComradeMan]

Oh fuck off. My making fun of you for believing in a sky wizard, or even some douchebag shouting vehemently about how evil religion is, is not tantamount to burning people at the stake and other various "witch tests."
Some atheists may uninformed fuckwads, but narry a one of them wants to cut your head off for worshipping a wizard.=

But the trouble is, like many militant atheists, I don't believe in a sky wizard and not once did anyone actually bother to ask before building up their "religious" strawman. Not everyone is some fanatical southern baptist, mad mullah or crazed zionist rabbi.... you might wish to bear that in mind.

For someone who likes to split etymological hairs, well then you know perfectly well what is meant by a witchhunt however you would do well to note that in some eras of the 20th century terrible crimes and atrocities were committed against innocent religious people for no other reason than their belief.


"Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." ~Confucius

Okay, so stop attacking people with generalisations that include people who have never done you any harm, and may wish you well because of their own "religious" belief.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But the trouble is, like many militant atheists, I don't believe in a sky wizard and not once did anyone actually bother to ask before building up their "religious" strawman. Not everyone is some fanatical southern baptist, mad mullah or crazed zionist rabbi.... you might wish to bear that in mind.

So what do you believe in, and how is it any less ridiculous than believing in Superman or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[Rjevan]

I think that’s a very sound assessment. However, you don’t seem to be contesting this point, so I will assume we’re agreed.
Absolutely! ;)


Believing in a supernatural daddy figure is not an essential prerequisite for respecting human rights. There is no fundamental connection there.
Couldn't have said it any better, although some religious people would deny this statement.


If you believe free expression, either A; because it’s a basic human right, or B; because it’s the most fundamental component of democracy, without it, democracy isn’t even possible. (This is predicated on the presumption that we both believe in democracy.)
The presumtion is right and exactly because of that it's obvious to me that ideologies which pose a threat to (genuine, not bourgeois) democracy and humanity must be fought. I'll give an example below since you mention highly questionable groups yourself.


Now, supporting freedom of expression means supporting it for ideas you absolutely despise... There’s all sorts of static out there that I object to; White Supremacist groups, NAMBLA, virtually everything on the Fox network, etc., etc... However, I would take a bullet to preserve a free space where they can spew their respective brands of horseshit without fear of being brutalized for it.
It's good that you gave these examples because they perfectly illustrate that it's not only about your/my/anybody's personal taste which leads us to despise other opinions but that there are opinions which objectively are reactionary and dangerous. It'd be hard to defend the view that there's nothing wrong with, for example, White Supremacism, that it's just a disagreeable but valid opinion which should be respected and tolerated.

Nobody holds an ideology and doesn't want to see it realised. So you have to take actions if you're genuinely convinced of your ideology. What this means and can mean with several reactionary views we all know. And this should urge one to rethink the concept of unlimited freedom of expression. It makes you wonder whether "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" really is such a good idea or if it is not objectively aiding the reactionary cause.

An anti-fascist slogan in Germany says "Fascism is no opinion but a crime!" I agree. And there's little doubt for me that I should support those who voice this slogan, although some of their views clash with mine and even if it means denying the nazis their freedom of expression, instead of patting one of the latter on the back and assuring him that he has every right to voice his vicious lies and hate mongering.


Lastly, when you stoop to censorship you cede the field to the enemy. If you actually do have better ideas then have enough faith in them, and in yourself, to duke it out on the battlefield of ideas. Most of the really poisonous ideologies, neo-Nazism, fundamentalist religion, etc., collapse under even a cursory analysis. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, these ideas actually thrive under the cover of darkness.
You have a point there and outlawing something often makes it even more interesting and attractive to some people. It'd be fatal to do so and simply ignore and deny the continued existence of a problem. That's why I said the best way to tackle religion after the revolution (apart from working towards material conditions which make religion superflous, of course) is not an outright ban but an educational offensive. But to tolerate fanatic religious groups under socialism and dare not touch them because you trust that everybody will "see the light" of your analysis and their reactionary views will remain without effect is risky and dangerous. Nobody can deny that reactionary groups exerted influence and power after revolutions and I'm not sure this was because the progressive forces sucked at debating.

[Revolution starts with U]

But the trouble is, like many militant atheists, I don't believe in a sky wizard and not once did anyone actually bother to ask before building up their "religious" strawman. Not everyone is some fanatical southern baptist, mad mullah or crazed zionist rabbi.... you might wish to bear that in mind

You're of the Judeo Christian ilk... unless you're a christian pantheist, you're worhsipping a sky wizard. Tho sometimes I am tempted to think YHWH is not a wizard. But that the Bible is the world's first recorded UFO encounter :lol: If that's the case, then the Abrahmic tradition is merely a cult for some extraterrestrial mad scientist. Imagine if there were a Cult of Frankenstein :rolleyes:




For someone who likes to split etymological hairs, well then you know perfectly well what is meant by a witchhunt however you would do well to note that in some eras of the 20th century terrible crimes and atrocities were committed against innocent religious people for no other reason than their belief.

I AM a stickler for semantics :lol:
Either way, this so-called "miltiant atheism" you're talking about is people making fun of religion/religous and/or calling it the most dangerous thing in the world. When you made your comment you weren't thinking of Stalin, were you? You were thinking of Dawkins.
And there's no concievable way you can put Dawkins on par with Ferdinand and Isabella, or Pope Gregory IX



Okay, so stop attacking people with generalisations that include people who have never done you any harm, and may wish you well because of their own "religious" belief.
You'll never find me advocating or supporting violence against the religous (merely for religion at the least). But I do find the best way to "fight" religion is the best way to fight racism; make fun of it. It deserves, imo, no legitimacy.

[Viet Minh]

I would defend people's right to criticise a religion based on its own 'merits', but not to slander those who follow it. God(s) can take a joke, Religious types it seems can't. :p Of course I oppose any sort of discrimination or personal attack upon religious believers, except those who put themselves up as representatives or spokespersons for that religion, they are fair game for reasonable debate.

[NGNM85]

Absolutely!



Couldn't have said it any better, although some religious people would deny this statement.

It’s refreshing to be able to see eye-to-eye like this. If only it were always so easy.


The presumtion is right and exactly because of that it's obvious to me that ideologies which pose a threat to (genuine, not bourgeois) democracy and humanity must be fought. I'll give an example below since you mention highly questionable groups yourself.


It's good that you gave these examples because they perfectly illustrate that it's not only about your/my/anybody's personal taste which leads us to despise other opinions but that there are opinions which objectively are reactionary and dangerous. It'd be hard to defend the view that there's nothing wrong with, for example, White Supremacism, that it's just a disagreeable but valid opinion which should be respected and tolerated.

Nobody holds an ideology and doesn't want to see it realised. So you have to take actions if you're genuinely convinced of your ideology. What this means and can mean with several reactionary views we all know. And this should urge one to rethink the concept of unlimited freedom of expression. It makes you wonder whether "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" really is such a good idea or if it is not objectively aiding the reactionary cause.

An anti-fascist slogan in Germany says "Fascism is no opinion but a crime!" I agree. And there's little doubt for me that I should support those who voice this slogan, although some of their views clash with mine and even if it means denying the nazis their freedom of expression, instead of patting one of the latter on the back and assuring him that he has every right to voice his vicious lies and hate mongering.

I would always rather pay the cost of respecting human rights than the cost of trampling them.

I think Germany’s laws regarding public speech are both regressive and counterproductive.

Look, I’ve said this before, so forgive me for repeating myself, but I think for any Leftist, or Socialist worthy of the name, there’s only one way to see it;

First; the right to express ideas freely without fear of persecution is a fundamental human right and a key litmus test of a democratic and open society. It is also the bedrock on which all other rights are predicated.

Second; Believing in freedom of speech means believing in it for ideas that you find objectionable. Nobody goes to prison for supporting the status quo.

Third; criminalizing speech is fascist, authoritarian, and tantamount to burning books, which is just another means of shutting down freespeech. This is the death knell for individual rights. Therefore, Anarchists should oppose it.

Also, Anarchists should oppose it out of hand because historically Anarchists have been the victims of such crusades.

Fourth; criminalizing free speech is bad because it’s tactically unsound. It just doesn’t work that well. In fact, it can very easily backfire and make the target more sympathetic. You don’t defeat bad ideas by silencing them. You defeat them by holding them under a spotlight for all to see. Especially bad ideas like neo-Nazism or holocaust denial should not be threatening because they are so easily countered. I despise religion, but I don’t want to throw all religious people into internment camps. I want new rules of conversation, I want to have a public, critical dialogue, because I know their ideas can’t possibly hold up.

Finally; virtually every leap forward in human progress, every visionary has drastically challenged the fundamental beliefs of the day, in art, culture, science, etc. If we silence the Faurisson’s we’re likely to silence the Galileo’s as well. Dissent is healthy, and moreover it’s fundamental to Anarchism.


You have a point there and outlawing something often makes it even more interesting and attractive to some people. It'd be fatal to do so and simply ignore and deny the continued existence of a problem.

I never suggested otherwise.


That's why I said the best way to tackle religion after the revolution

I think we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

I also have a somewhat unorthodox (In terms of the spectrum of the forum.) take on ‘revolution.’


(apart from working towards material conditions which make religion superflous, of course)

I’m not sure there is a magic bullet. I recently read Lawrence Wright’s Looming Tower, (Which I highly recommend.) and what struck me most was how affluent and well-educated most of the prominent Jihadists were. Said Qutb was well-educated, financially comfortable, he enjoyed western movies and art before, inexplicably, in his twenties, converting to an extremely radical and literalist interpretation of Islam. Ayman al-Zawahiri came from an affluent, well-educated family, was not raised in an unusually fanatical home, he was well educated, a doctor, and, again, just converted to this insane religious fundamentalism. Many point out that Zawahiri was tortured in Egypt, which is true, so was Qutb, but both men had already formulated their extreme views well before this happened. Osama bin Laden has absolutely no practical knowledge of US imperialism, or oppression of any kind. His father was a wealthy man with a prosperous company, his family was not especially fanatical, he went to an excellent school, (Many of his siblings went on to successful careers as doctors, lawyers, etc.) and he inherited millions, much of which he blew funding various terrorist activities. So, even financial stability coupled with an excellent education, even in the hard sciences, is necessarily a guarantee against the most extreme and violent forms of religious fanaticism. However, data does strongly suggest that education, particularly in the hard sciences, generally speaking, has an inverse relationship with religiosity.


is not an outright ban but an educational offensive. But to tolerate fanatic religious groups under socialism and dare not touch them because you trust that everybody will "see the light" of your analysis and their reactionary views will remain without effect is risky and dangerous. Nobody can deny that reactionary groups exerted influence and power after revolutions and I'm not sure this was because the progressive forces sucked at debating.

See above.

[Black Sheep]

Establish communism --> abundance-->no need for wishful thinking--->good education --->science answers every question ---> the mind-numbing beauty of the universe dwarfs the religious fantasies
--> Religion returns to its rightful place, mythology.