Why both militant atheists and extremely devoted religious people anger me

[matevz91]

After years of constant argument with both sides, militant atheists and "the flock" (extremely devoted religious people) I came to the conclusion, that they are basically the same. Why?
a) Flock blindly follows their master, as described in the "holy" books, while militant atheists blindly stick to their position like metal to a magnet

b) Both flock and militant atheists interpret holy books literally (and we know where that leads), or they try to search for hidden clues everywhere (exactly the opposite problem)

c) Both flock and militant atheists are against anything that can shake their beliefs or lack of them

d) Militant atheists base their arguments almost only on antropomorphic and personal God, such as Abrahamic God, and also does the flock only recognize this type of God

e) Both have trouble with the distinction of [organized religion] vs [religion based on personal beliefs & personal beliefs without any dogmas]

These are the most important points. Sorry for not providing you with a more detailed and complex post (it is midnight here, hibernation awaits :)).

Anyway, this post only tries to show how laughable both groups of people are. All non-militant atheists or devoted religious people outside the "flock", I did not mean to offend you, sorry if I did.

Anyone else noticed this similarity?

------------------------------------------------------------
Btw, for those who believe that only the Abrahamic concept of God is possible, check the wiki for God: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

And yes, some young militant atheists call themselves communists because "all communists are supposedly militant atheists". Luckily, majority of such "genuie communists" leave rather quickly, but mostly due to other reasons.

One last comment - I will post a comment from Community Believer (Does evolution disprove God), just because I like it so much: "Evolution just proves that if a god exists, he exists outside of time. This is what most religions claim anyways."

[Caj]

a) Because there is no evidence for the existence of God, we must adhere to our lack of belief unless evidence is provided for his existence. We can't be blamed for "stick[ing] to [our] position like metal to a magnet[,]" when theists have yet to present any evidence.

b) To a certain extent we do. We're not going to pretend that verses about stoning one's children for disobedience or forcing rape victims to marry their rapist are just clever metaphors. Is this unreasonable in any way?

c) This has yet to be ascertained because there has yet to be any evidence presented that is contrary to our lack of a position.

d) Yes, and this is completely fine so long as militant atheists don't extend these arguments against anthropomorphic gods to gods in general, which we don't.

e) I wouldn't say so. Can you give an example of this?

[tir1944]

Yes,miltiant atheists can be quite annoying sometimes.
Almost as annoying as those "Can you spare a minute for Jesus?" types...

[ВАЛТЕР]

I personally don't care, I prefer militant atheists over religious assholes any day of the week. There is no logical reason to believe in a god, and even a smaller reason to worship him.

This is my logic: God either does not exist, or does not care. Either way it is not worth my time.

[The Jay]

Militant atheists are nowhere near as annoying as fundies.

[Nox]

Here's my logic: God doesn't exist.

I am a militant atheist, it feels so good freeing someone from the filth known as religion. It's comparable to rehabilitating a criminal.

[Tenka]

I don't know about militant atheists, but there are those really annoying ones who think they can link all of the evils of the world back to religion, and go on about how many people Biblegod killed as though it constituted an argument against people's metaphysical nonsense beliefs that they turned to either for a false sense of security, through child-hood indoctrination, or after a 'Revelation' (often involving drugs and/or serious mental disorder).

[Susurrus]

There are some militant atheists who are annoying idiots, but there are a lot more annoying idiots who are fundies.

[B5C]

a) Flock blindly follows their master, as described in the "holy" books, while militant atheists blindly stick to their position like metal to a magnet

Who is the atheist master? Plato? Hitchens? Russell? We don't have holy books. Yes we may read a lot of books, but we don't have any leaders.


b) Both flock and militant atheists interpret holy books literally (and we know where that leads), or they try to search for hidden clues everywhere (exactly the opposite problem)


That is the point of being an atheist. Finding clues and reading the books as they should is being part of a skeptic. Also we don't use faith. We need evidence to prove our claims.



c) Both flock and militant atheists are against anything that can shake their beliefs or lack of them

We are not against anything that can shake their beliefs. We just object of them believing without proof. How is that wrong?



d) Militant atheists base their arguments almost only on antropomorphic and personal God, such as Abrahamic God, and also does the flock only recognize this type of God

We view the Abrahamic god like Zeus, Ra, and Mithras. We think of them as superstition and mythology.



e) Both have trouble with the distinction of [organized religion] vs [religion based on personal beliefs & personal beliefs without any dogmas]

Religion HAS dogma.



One last comment - I will post a comment from Community Believer (Does evolution disprove God), just because I like it so much: "Evolution just proves that if a god exists, he exists outside of time. This is what most religions claim anyways."

Can you prove to me that god exists outside of time?

[$lim_$weezy]

If one were really to be skeptical, he would not accept physicalism and scientism blindly. Basically, physicalism presupposes only the existence of physical stuff, so obviously a physicalist will not believe in a God. Evidence can't be given because evidence is by its nature material...

[Revolution starts with U]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aUiqw4Bcuwk/TmyY-YW2SxI/AAAAAAAAB6g/Aqugc3K6mCE/s320/atheists.png

[Agent Ducky]

I kinda understand what you mean. Some atheists can be just as bad as fundies. I'm referring to the ones who seem to have nothing better to do with their spare time but scour the Bible for contradictions, find flaws in religious arguments, etc. It's a lost cause, yet they persist.

[Tablo]

I agree with the OP. I used to be a militant atheist after I first left Christianity(former Presbyterian here). Over the years I grew tired of religious debate and focused more on politics. I realized the whole reason I focused so much on militant atheism is because I was upset about how I was treated in high school when I openly declared disbelief in god. I'm now an agnostic atheist(do not believe in god because I see no evidence proving or disproving his/her/its existence). Anti-theistic atheists need to stfu. I do think that if there is a god that it should be overthrown(depending on the definition of god), but to flat out say there isn't one with no evidence is the same as claiming there is one. People need to get over themselves and be sane and tolerant human beings.

[Princess Luna]

Saying there isn't a god is not the same as saying there is a god. Yes, it is impossible for humans to know everything, but the idea of a supreme being who lives in a different realm, has infinate power, and knows everything that will ever happen down to the movements of the atoms, is so ridiculous and implausable that saying he doesn't exist is nowhere near as unfounded as saying he does exist. If I told you I was martian prince who had been exiled to Earth, would you take me seriously based soley on the fact it is impossible to know everything?

[Scarlet Fever]

...to flat out say there isn't one with no evidence is the same as claiming there is one.

This is a patently false equivalency. If we define theism as belief in deity and atheism as lack of such belief, then theism is making the claim and atheism is the default. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, and rationality demands that we withhold belief until the proof is provided. In other words, I don't have to prove that Russell's teapot isn't on the dark side of the moon; it's up to the person making the assertion to provide the evidence for it.

[ComradeMan]

Who is the atheist master? Plato? Hitchens? Russell? We don't have holy books. Yes we may read a lot of books, but we don't have any leaders.

Plato? Atheist? He was a monotheist/monist in many senses. Neoplatonism went on to formulate a very clear form of "non-Abrahamic" monotheism. I don't think you can say Plato was an atheist.


Can you prove to me that god exists outside of time?

How would one, presumably a person bound by the laws of physics, do that?

[matevz91]

How would one, presumably a person bound by the laws of physics, do that?

Excellent response! For me, the question of God`s existence is not so important. Why? Because the term existence is itself flaky. I have once written that God must be a mathematician and a system programmer (as did people before me), invariant to its existence.

I must add that worshiping God is not the same as thinking about it. This is another weak point of both, the "flock" and militant atheists: they both think that worshiping God == thinking about God.

If you ask me, invariant to Gods existence, we do not worship God. We worship our idea of God.

Btw, for those who have problems with omniscience and omnipresence do not get the point of being "outside time" and "outside space".

[ВАЛТЕР]

Jim Jefferies pretty much sums it up.:):laugh:

y-RJeqyh-vI

[B5C]

Plato? Atheist? He was a monotheist/monist in many senses. Neoplatonism went on to formulate a very clear form of "non-Abrahamic" monotheism. I don't think you can say Plato was an atheist.

I admit I'm wrong there. I needed a greek philosopher and some how that popped in my head.




How would one, presumably a person bound by the laws of physics, do that?

If people claim that a deity is outside of the realm. They pretty much need to prove that as well.

I hate the "Shield of Faith."

[hatzel]

Those who seek objectivity, that is to say, a single absolute truth equally applicable to all people and all peoples, seek only to reaffirm themselves as masters over the bearers of other (un)truths. As a proponent of anarchy, I oppose the mastery of one over another.

That is all I will say on this topic.

[Искра]

Militant atheists are same like religious fundamentalists. They just go around and preach their crap. That's why don't consider myself an antheist, cause I don't really give a fuck about does God exist or not. All religions at the end preach almost the same set of values and if you read them you'll understand that in order to have functional society people need to respect most of them (don't kill etc.)... Of course, a lot of them are class related issues, and they should be pointed out as such. But in the end, as I said I don't give a fuck. That's why I'm not an atheist but I consider mysled dontgiveafuckist.

[ZeroNowhere]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aUiqw4Bcuwk/TmyY-YW2SxI/AAAAAAAAB6g/Aqugc3K6mCE/s320/atheists.png
Wow, Randall Munroe certainly has slipped into self-parody.

[hatzel]

Oh, actually I lied in my last post; I'll say one more thing on this topic (and after that nothing more, promise!):


This is a patently false equivalency. If we define theism as belief in deity and atheism as lack of such belief, then theism is making the claim and atheism is the default. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim...

Alternatively, we could play this little game with slightly different rules, and argue that the 'default' position is as follows: 'what an individual perceives with their sensory and/or extra-sensory faculties is true, for it could otherwise not be perceived.' In this instance, the burden of proof (if we're actually talking about that shit, which I would never do because it's almost always used as a codeword for 'fuck off, I'm right, prove me wrong...oh, but your proof has to be accepted by me, that is to say you have to use an epistemological method which I recognise as valid, because I'm in charge here and I set the rules because I'm right and you're wrong, so suck on that, brah!') would lie with the person who makes the claim that what one perceives with one's sensory and/or extra-sensory faculties is not true, despite its being perceived as such. That is to say, this nonsensical burden of proof would lie with both parties, if they were to claim that the other person's experiential knowledge is false.

So as to make it seem as though I've only actually said one thing, as originally promised, I'll weave these two posts together: talk of a 'burden of proof' is only coherent if we presuppose that there is an objective truth to be proven.

[Revolution starts with U]

Epicurus is the Greek atheist you were looking for :thumbup1:

[ComradeMan]

Diagoras of Melos (5th century BCE) "blasphemed" the gods and tried to reveal the secrets of the Eleusinian mysteries, he had to run for it from Athens and ended up in Corinth where he died.


"With reason did the Athenians adjudge Diagoras guilty of atheism, in that he not only divulged the Orphic doctrine, and published the mysteries of Eleusis and of the Cabiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabiri), and chopped up the wooden statue of Hercules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules) to boil his turnips, but openly declared that there was no God at all.": Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagoras_of_Melos

[Nicolai]

How would one, presumably a person bound by the laws of physics, do that?

That's the point. You can't, as there is nothing to prove there.

[Koba1917]

This is why I take a moderate Ignostic position. Though I would like it to be said that not all Theists/Deists are religious and not all Atheists are Irreligious.

[B5C]

GBHfiR4jtCU

[ComradeMan]

.....

So you're not a Buddhist anymore? :confused:

Is this guy a militant atheist too?

"Pat Condel"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-KHHKuVVRc&feature=related

[B5C]

So you're not a Buddhist anymore? :confused:

Is this guy a militant atheist too?

"Pat Condel"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-KHHKuVVRc&feature=related

Buddhists are atheists.

Also I am a Buddhist who does not believe in the superstitious parts of Buddhism.

http://www.secondunitarianomaha.org/bookstore/images/1573226564.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Without-Beliefs-Contemporary-Awakening/dp/1573226564

I am a bit of a fan of Pat. I don't agree with his politics. Also note there are a lot of Buddhist monks who oppose organized religion.

[ComradeMan]

Buddhists are atheists.
Also I am a Buddhist who does not believe in the superstitious parts of
Buddhism.

What like... err Buddha?


I am a bit of a fan of Pat. I don't agree with his politics. Also note there are a lot of Buddhist monks who oppose organized religion.

I don't know much about this guy, he always seems angry and he doesn't seem to like Islam.

[B5C]

What like... err Buddha?


The Buddha can be wrong and for nearly 200-400 years after his death. His talks were NEVER written down. A lot of changes could have happen in 200-400 years with the telephone game in effect. We don't have dogma and we don't like dogma.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. ~Buddha



I don't know much about this guy, he always seems angry and he doesn't seem to like Islam.

Well there are some atheists who oppose Islam more than Christianity.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't see him calling for the death of Islamists... how again would he be "militant?" I didn't even see anything in that video about atheism, rather than anti-islamicism.

[ComradeMan]

Tunless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense

What if your reason includes human sacrifice and you think it's common sense? People in the past obviously did think it "worked" otherwise they wouldn't have done it.


I don't see him calling for the death of Islamists... how again would he be "militant?" I didn't even see anything in that video about atheism, rather than anti-islamicism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk

[The Jay]

I don't see him calling for the death of Islamists... how again would he be "militant?" I didn't even see anything in that video about atheism, rather than anti-islamicism.

People throw the word militant around outspoken atheists to try to make them seem like a fringe group. If they really were militant, they would do more than debate.

[B5C]

What if your reason includes human sacrifice and you think it's common sense? People in the past obviously did think it "worked" otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

Human sacrifice? Are you shitting me? Buddha never support human sacrifice. The Buddha taught that killing is wrong.

[ComradeMan]

Human sacrifice? Are you shitting me? Buddha never support human sacrifice. The Buddha taught that killing is wrong.

No, that wasn't the point. You quoted the Buddha on only doing what is reasonable and common sense. So I asked what if someone thought human sacrifice were reasonable and common sense, like in ancient times? What would the Buddha say?

[Revolution starts with U]

What if your reason includes human sacrifice and you think it's common sense? People in the past obviously did think it "worked" otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

That's where my "intersubjective objectivity" comes into play. Any system works off this principle (that beliefs are subjective, and played out intersubjectively, establishing an objectivity for them), therefore the most ethical system is a democratic one, specifically one supported by the largest majorities possible.

Inserting the 10 Commandments cannot, and did not, fix this problem.




(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk

Nowhere did he call for the death of the religious. He called for taking an active role in opposing religious oppression.

[ComradeMan]

---.

I'm asking BSC for the explanation of the Buddha's comment

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk"]


Nowhere did he call for the death of the religious. He called for taking an active role in opposing religious oppression.

I didn't say he did. Militant doesn't necessarily mean you go around killing people....

[Koba1917]

What if your reason includes human sacrifice and you think it's common sense? People in the past obviously did think it "worked" otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

That was quite a strawman if I do say so myself. Essentially the Buddha is talking about beliefs and ones acceptance based upon their own rationality and not acceptance from authority or superstition. But you could simply take your statement and use it on anyone who supports rational thought such as....Bertrand Russell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8h-xEuLfm8)

[Franz Fanonipants]

http://www.angelfire.com/or/sociologyshop/msor.html

marxism or get out

[Nicolai]

Pat used to be a militant atheist (maybe still is) bt he pretty much turned on the OMG ISLAM IZ ALL TERRORIST-wave that Britain is on. He's pretty much a nationalistic prick now (he has even endorsed the EDL...).

[ComradeMan]

That was quite a strawman if I do say so myself. Essentially the Buddha is talking about beliefs and ones acceptance based upon their own rationality and not acceptance from authority or superstition. But you could simply take your statement and use it on anyone who supports rational thought such as....Bertrand Russell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8h-xEuLfm8)

It's not a strawman at all. Seeing as religions are concerned with ethics and morality, it's a valid enough question- especially given the context of the ancient times in which it was supposedly stated.


Pat used to be a militant atheist (maybe still is) bt he pretty much turned on the OMG ISLAM IZ ALL TERRORIST-wave that Britain is on. He's pretty much a nationalistic prick now (he has even endorsed the EDL...).

Is he well-known in the UK or something?

[Koba1917]

It's not a strawman at all. Seeing as religions are concerned with ethics and morality, it's a valid enough question- especially given the context of the ancient times in which it was supposedly stated.


Like I said, it was a quote based upon belief. Anyways, do you think this is the Buddhist way of understanding morality? Buddhists differ way to greatly to understand them from a single quote. Some 'Buddhists' I don't even consider them religious more then following a Philosophy.

[B5C]

No, that wasn't the point. You quoted the Buddha on only doing what is reasonable and common sense. So I asked what if someone thought human sacrifice were reasonable and common sense, like in ancient times? What would the Buddha say?

Buddha clearly taught that killing another human is wrong. That solves that issue, and he can criticise human sacrifice.

Note that in India, Hinduism has never accepted human sacrifice and it's frown upon in Hindu culture. Common sense will apply that human sacrifice is wrong because it's frown upon in Buddhism and Hinduism in the time of the life of the Buddha.

Human Sacrifice is supportive some areas where their local religions and cultures demand said sacrifice. Especially in the Bible and we grown out of it through different religion, enlightenment, or conquest of another culture.

[ComradeMan]

Buddha clearly taught that killing another human is wrong. That solves that issue, and he can criticise human sacrifice.

Why? On what basis did he make that assertion? The other problem is defining what is "common sense" and what is "reasonable". Like I said before, to the ancient societies that did practise those things it probably seemed perfectly reasonable and common sensical.


Note that in India, Hinduism has never accepted human sacrifice and it's frown upon in Hindu culture.

Human sacrifice has existed in India, in forms of Hinduism, and has been noted in modern times too. In earlier Vedic times, although controversial, human sacrifice is also mentioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#India
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/05/india.theobserver
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1908706.stm

Human Sacrifice is supportive some areas where their local religions and cultures demand said sacrifice. Especially in the Bible and we grown out of it through different religion, enlightenment, or conquest of another culture.

Can you reword that? I don't follow....

[Iron Felix]

I guess the difference between "militant" atheists and religious people is that atheists don't hijack planes and fly them into buildings because Dawkins told them to.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I guess the difference between "militant" atheists and religious people is that atheists don't hijack planes and fly them into buildings because Dawkins told them to.

yeah, because striking at the symbolic center of western imperialism is actually proscribed in the qu'ran.

you fucking tool.

[Revolution starts with U]

yeah, because striking at the symbolic center of western imperialism is actually proscribed in the qu'ran.

you fucking tool.

^ Textbook example of "missing the point completely." :rolleyes:

[Koba1917]

I guess the difference between "militant" atheists and religious people is that atheists don't hijack planes and fly them into buildings because Dawkins told them to.

Me and my love for Biology, I find Dawkins a great Biologist who wrote great books on the subject of Evolution. But I moved away from the new Atheist movement and Dawkins because it's kind of dumb and lame. Mostly because they can sometimes be as dumb and intolerant as religious folk.

[Franz Fanonipants]

^ Textbook example of "missing the point completely." :rolleyes:

these things do not occur because of religion. they occur because of relation to capital and the means of production.

any other answer is inherently reactionary.

[Revolution starts with U]

these things do not occur because of religion. they occur because of relation to capital and the means of production.

any other answer is inherently reactionary.

The point: People don't go bombing buildings because Dawkins told them to. Fanatics bomb buildings because (among other reasons) their Imam told them to.

You missed it, completely.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The point: People don't go bombing buildings because Dawkins told them to. Fanatics bomb buildings because (among other reasons) their Imam told them to.

You missed it, completely.

no, i understand.

I just applied actual Marxist reasoning to it and realized that people don't do violent things because of structures of thought.

[B5C]

Why? On what basis did he make that assertion? The other problem is defining what is "common sense" and what is "reasonable". Like I said before, to the ancient societies that did practise those things it probably seemed perfectly reasonable and common sensical.


He believed life need does not need to suffer or forced to die. Human sacfrice to a local deity does not support his teachings.



Human sacrifice has existed in India, in forms of Hinduism, and has been noted in modern times too. In earlier Vedic times, although controversial, human sacrifice is also mentioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#India
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/05/india.theobserver
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1908706.stm


Human sacrifice is rare in India and is illegal. Even during the Buddha's time it was frown upon and extremely rare. Human sacrifice in India was not as common like the Aztecs and Mayans.



Can you reword that? I don't follow....

Human Sacrifice is supportive some areas where their local religions and cultures demand said sacrifice. The Aztecs in a good example. We grown out of it through different religion (Roman pagan religion is removed with Christianity), enlightenment of the culture to think differently (The religion decides that human sacrifice is not necessarily), or conquest of another culture (Spain's conquest of the Aztecs).

You are right. To the Aztecs it could be common sense to them to do it because their faith says so.

Yet the quote I talked about was about the telling his followers "don't take my word for it." Salvation is through YOU and not through the Buddha or any deity you wish to believe.

Ok I debated your straw man.

[ComradeMan]

He believed life need does not need to suffer or forced to die. Human sacfrice to a local deity does not support his teachings.

Why should we believe what he believed just because he believed it?


Human sacrifice is rare in India and is illegal. Even during the Buddha's time it was frown upon and extremely rare. Human sacrifice in India was not as common like the Aztecs and Mayans.

Do you have stats? It still happens today, we are not talking about the scale....


Human Sacrifice is supportive some areas where their local religions and cultures demand said sacrifice. The Aztecs in a good example. We grown out of it through different religion (Roman pagan religion is removed with Christianity), enlightenment of the culture to think differently (The religion decides that human sacrifice is not necessarily), or conquest of another culture (Spain's conquest of the Aztecs).

They didn't grow out of it- it was positively stamped out.


Yet the quote I talked about was about the telling his followers "don't take my word for it." Salvation is through YOU and not through the Buddha or any deity you wish to believe.

And what if you believe in human sacrifice? Why should you listen to the Buddha in that case? He said it was wrong to kill- but if you don't have to take his word for it....


Ok I debated your straw man.

With inaccurate information and without answering the question.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Human sacrifice in India was not as common like the Aztecs and Mayans.

laffo

you know that "aztec" human sacrifice was probably p. overreported right?

[WeAreReborn]

laffo

you know that "aztec" human sacrifice was probably p. overreported right?
That's true. When Cortés arrived he was thought to be Quetzalcoatl (as I'm sure we are all aware). However, with his arrival he brought with him disease, such as smallpox. Due to this outbreak, the Aztec people thought that they had brought displeasure so they increased the human sacrifices greatly. Also it should be known that the main enemy of the Aztecs (the Tlaxcaltecas) would rather be sacrificed then not due to their culture. Legend states in fact that one members of the Tlaxcaltecas got set freed and returned to his village and offered himself to another religious sacrifice there. Not to justify human sacrifices, but if one is going to compare two cultures and the concept of human sacrifice they should understand the context.

[Franz Fanonipants]

That's true. When Cortés arrived he was thought to be Quetzalcoatl (as I'm sure we are all aware).

this is another lie

e: /historically VERY specious

e of e: actually comrade leave history to historians.

[Azraella]

Religion is a tool as much as anything else is for an asshole to justify his/her/their hate, ignorance and bigotry. It can be used for good, and it has, unfortunately it can also be used for bad. I just hate it when people use their beliefs as an excuse to do or say terrible things. Just as much as I would hate for a non believer to do the same thing.

A summation of my opinions:

A) It's wrong to mistreat people because of their beliefs, or force beliefs on to others.

B) There ARE intelligent and sensible theists out there.

C) Religion isn't inherently evil, and may well have aided in human progress, at least early on in our history.

[NGNM85]

After years of constant argument with both sides, militant atheists and "the flock" (extremely devoted religious people) I came to the conclusion, that they are basically the same. Why?

No offense, but; if you’ve determined that these two are equivalent, then your math sucks.


a) Flock blindly follows their master, as described in the "holy" books, while militant atheists blindly stick to their position like metal to a magnet

First of all; ‘militant Atheism’ is a myth created by butthurt Theists. As near as I can figure, a ‘militant’ Atheist is any Atheist that publicly proclaims their Atheism and refuses to apologize for it, or kowtow to Theists.

These are two fundamentally different things. Atheists do not assert any special knowledge about the universe. All Atheists do is repeatedly point out the total lack of evidence to support Theists’ claims, or that said claims are verifiably false.


b) Both flock and militant atheists interpret holy books literally (and we know where that leads), or they try to search for hidden clues everywhere (exactly the opposite problem)

By all evidence; the Koran, the Bible, etc., were specifically intended to be interpreted literally. Furthermore; virtually all Theists believe that these texts are, to some extent, literally true. Believing that Jesus Christ is the savior, and the son of the one true god is the sufficient condition of being a Christian. Anyone who does not accept this proposition cannot be a Christian.


c) Both flock and militant atheists are against anything that can shake their beliefs or lack of them

Nonsense. Science is one of the few disciplines where a one can gain international recognition for disproving his earlier work. Scientific hypothesis are routinely subjected to intense scrutiny. Scientists, by nature, are humble, they will trip over themselves to tell you all the things they do not know. Theists, as a rule, are quite fond of making outlandish and unsubstantiated claims, in total confidence, despite having absolutely no evidence to support such claims, or, even, voluminous evidence contraindicating said claims.


d) Militant atheists base their arguments almost only on antropomorphic and personal God, such as Abrahamic God, and also does the flock only recognize this type of God

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity,(All of which absolutely proclaim the existence of an Anthropomorphic, and personal god.) alone, make up around 65% of the worlds’ Theists. Ergo; any claim that accurately describes the former, covers the majority of Theists, in total. Furthermore; belief in an anthropomorphic god, or gods, is not limited to the Abrahamic faiths.


e) Both have trouble with the distinction of [organized religion] vs [religion based on personal beliefs & personal beliefs without any dogmas]

The reason is because those quietly held personal beliefs aren’t causing social chaos, while we are confronted with the social costs of religious dogmatism every day.


And yes, some young militant atheists call themselves communists because "all communists are supposedly militant atheists". Luckily, majority of such "genuie communists" leave rather quickly, but mostly due to other reasons.
Socialists and Communists have generally, historically objected to religion on two counts; First; the religious institutions, and religious hierarchy, and the highly suspect truth claims made by religions, as Socialism/Communism overwhelmingly subscribe to a Metaphysical Materialist (AKA: ‘Scientific’) perspective. Personally; I think religion is a blight on humanity.

One last comment - I will post a comment from Community Believer (Does evolution disprove God), just because I like it so much: "Evolution just proves that if a god exists, he exists outside of time. This is what most religions claim anyways."
Is natural selection inherently incompatible with the Abrahamic faiths? To a certain extent, this depends, somewhat, on ones’ interpretation. However; the brand of Christianity that is most popular in the United States absolutely is. Nearly two-thirds (?!!!) of Americans reject evolution, favoring some more literal interpretation of Genesis. That this should be the case, today, in the 21st century, is horrifying, and carries real consequences, which will haunt us for years to come.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

C) Religion isn't inherently evil, and may well have aided in human progress, at least early on in our history.

I'd like to address this.

Religion isn't inherently evil, indeed. But it can serve to legitimise evil acts - at least in the eyes of the perpetrator - with them all the while claiming to be acting for good.

Of course, this sort of thing isn't just limited to religion - totalitarian secular ideologies can take advantage of groupthink and create a cult of personality. But historically such things don't appear to commonplace or stable, and I suspect that's because secular totalitarian ideologies are too obviously centred on the temporal, such as a state, a leader or an ideology known to be created entirely by mortals, as opposed to religion which takes advantage of our natural tendency to see purpose everywhere as well as claiming to have divine or cosmic sanction.

Case in point: North Korea. The government there has effectively deified Kim il-Sung (the Eternal President), with Juche as the official ideology, much like other polities have official religions. DPRK gets away with doing this because of their near-total control of the country's media and communications, and no doubt there are people there have been raised from birth in Juche. Because of this, as well as the supernatural claims made concerning the leadership of the DPRK, I would actually say that the DPRK is secular only by appearance. Although the DPRK started out Marxist-Leninist, material conditions over the course of history lead to their adoption of ideology and practice more akin to religion than any meaningfully secular political philosophy.

[ComradeMan]

Religion isn't inherently evil, indeed. But it can serve to legitimise evil acts - at least in the eyes of the perpetrator - with them all the while claiming to be acting for good..

Fuck me, we agree on something in the religion forum!

However, anything can be used to legitimise evil acts, hell the Nazis used "science" to legitimise their racial theories that led to genocide.

[Azraella]

But it can serve to legitimise evil acts - at least in the eyes of the perpetrator - with them all the while claiming to be acting for good.

I don't deny that. In fact I am completely aware of the bloody, violent history that religion has had. I am inclined to say that organized religion is a blight. I cannot in good conscious support the existence of it. Disorganized religion is an entirely different matter*. Which is why Wicca and similar pagan paths are getting popular... I'm partially Gnostic too and I don't like that the Gnostic churches that even exist.

*Ok, not entirely. Even some people that belong to spiritual paths can have negative and socially repressive beliefs.


Case in point: North Korea. The government there has effectively deified Kim il-Sung (the Eternal President), with Juche as the official ideology, much like other polities have official religions. DPRK gets away with doing this because of their near-total control of the country's media and communications, and no doubt there are people there have been raised from birth in Juche.

I think that really seals the cake for anti-statism in general. >.> To clarify my own attitudes, it's also why I'm against hierarchical and organized religion. Faith itself* is an entirely different animal but not something I'm against as I am among the faithful. Ideologies get subverted by charismatic, and has led to countless suffering. I do not trust my fellow human being in a position of power over me and especially a position where my spirituality can be manipulated by those who are less savory, It's why I'm against hierarchy... it attracts unsavory characters (http://psp.sagepub.com/content/34/12/1663.abstract), it warps their thinking abilities to make them more hypocritical (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kellogg.northwestern.edu%2Ffa culty%2Fgalinsky%2FPower%2520Hypocrisy%2520Psych%2 520Science%2520in%2520press.pdf&rct=j&q=%22Power%20Increases%20Hypocrisy%22%20lammers&ei=SwAWTv6sC-fRiAKvzrSdDw&usg=AFQjCNF6BhAlt50j6gQHGy9UIjx7i31sZw&cad=rja), and it makes them care less about others (http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2008/vankleef.cfm).

*I can accept anti-theistic arguments that faith isn't rational I'm fine with that. My belief is my own and I won't justify it for anyone.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fuck me, we agree on something in the religion forum!

However, anything can be used to legitimise evil acts, hell the Nazis used "science" to legitimise their racial theories that led to genocide.

The difference is that things like racial pseudoscience and Lysenkoism, because they draw their authority from having the style but not the substance of science, are highly vulnerable to inconvenient evidence, unlike established religions which avoid the matter of evidence entirely, as well as having a battery of psychological mechanisms that serve to reinforce belief in the face of things which blatantly defy the religion's ontology.

Prediction: when the DPRK falls, Juche will fall with it, except perhaps for a handful of die-hard true believers. This is because Juche derives its "legitimacy" from the continuing existence of the DPRK, much as Nazi racial pseudoscience derived it's legitimacy from the continued existence of Nazi Germany.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't deny that. In fact I am completely aware of the bloody, violent history that religion has had. I am inclined to say that organized religion is a blight. I cannot in good conscious support the existence of it. Disorganized religion is an entirely different matter*. Which is why Wicca and similar pagan paths are getting popular... I'm partially Gnostic too and I don't like that the Gnostic churches that even exist.

*Ok, not entirely. Even some people that belong to spiritual paths can have negative and socially repressive beliefs.

Individualistic superstition can also be problematic, but for different reasons. There's no church or hierarchy involved in say, alternative "medicine", but the snake-oil salesmen take advantage of the same drives and tendencies that organised religions do. Like faith healers and "I can make your baby a boy/girl" fraudsters, altie quacks thrive on the human need for quick and easy answers to their problems.

Also, what do you think came before organised religion?


I think that really seals the cake for anti-statism in general. >.> To clarify my own attitudes, it's also why I'm against hierarchical and organized religion. Faith itself* is an entirely different animal but not something I'm against as I am among the faithful. Ideologies get subverted by charismatic, and has led to countless suffering. I do not trust my fellow human being in a position of power over me and especially a position where my spirituality can be manipulated by those who are less savory, It's why I'm against hierarchy... it attracts unsavory characters (http://psp.sagepub.com/content/34/12/1663.abstract), it warps their thinking abilities to make them more hypocritical (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kellogg.northwestern.edu%2Ffa culty%2Fgalinsky%2FPower%2520Hypocrisy%2520Psych%2 520Science%2520in%2520press.pdf&rct=j&q=%22Power%20Increases%20Hypocrisy%22%20lammers&ei=SwAWTv6sC-fRiAKvzrSdDw&usg=AFQjCNF6BhAlt50j6gQHGy9UIjx7i31sZw&cad=rja), and it makes them care less about others (http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2008/vankleef.cfm).

*I can accept anti-theistic arguments that faith isn't rational I'm fine with that. My belief is my own and I won't justify it for anyone.

Problem is, if what you have faith in isn't actually true, doesn't it then become a problem when someone takes advantage of your false beliefs for their own purposes?

[ComradeMan]

Individualistic superstition can also be problematic, but for different reasons. There's no church or hierarchy involved in say, alternative "medicine", but the snake-oil salesmen take advantage of the same drives and tendencies that organised religions do. ?

Remember thalidomide?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Remember thalidomide?

What about it? It worked as advertised, but had nasty side-effects because, for some reason, it wasn't tested on pregnant animals. Thalidomide is a lesson in thorough testing of medicines, but I fail to see what has to do with superstition.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Militant atheists are same like religious fundamentalists. They just go around and preach their crap. That's why don't consider myself an antheist, cause I don't really give a fuck about does God exist or not. All religions at the end preach almost the same set of values and if you read them you'll understand that in order to have functional society people need to respect most of them (don't kill etc.)... Of course, a lot of them are class related issues, and they should be pointed out as such. But in the end, as I said I don't give a fuck. That's why I'm not an atheist but I consider mysled dontgiveafuckist.

apatheist would be the term. You are apathetic to the idea of god or whether or not one exists, etc.