Militant atheism is necessary

[Elysian]

There are many reasons as to why militant atheism is necessary, such as encouraging rational thought, but there are important political reasons too. Religious nuts often side with the ruling class, encourage wars, justify racism and homophobia. What's worse, followers of these religious leaders swallow all this propaganda and become a threat to others.

Consider Iraq war. All evangelical nuts like Stanley, Mac etc. were supporting it, comparing saddam to nebuchadnezzar, so gullible followers believe that history is repeating itself. So they support war, while in their minds they're supporting doctrine. Another example is homophobia. Followers, like blind sheep, do what their pastors say. If the pastors say homosexuality is evil, these blind idiots believe it without questioning.

Atheists, otoh, are not tied to any irrational ideology, so they can plan their actions according to material conditions and not worry about upsetting the church or pastor or god. They care about logic, so their thoughts and behavior are going to reflect some sanity.

So I feel militant atheism is a must. Give religious nuts an inch and they take a mile.

[Franz Fanonipants]

you're right! i am sure no militant atheists ever supported any imperialist wars! reason guided them, so i am sure that they have nothing but good at heart

[RGacky3]

What I love is a while ago this guy was a Calvinist, then a couple posts on revleft turn him into a militant atheist, obviously this guys opinions are not really well formed.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What I love is a while ago this guy was a Calvinist, then a couple posts on revleft turn him into a militant atheist, obviously this guys opinions are not really well formed.

i'm p. sure he's a troll

[Elysian]

you're right! i am sure no militant atheists ever supported any imperialist wars! reason guided them, so i am sure that they have nothing but good at heart

American imperialism is based on Christianity. So were Spanish and British imperialism. Most racists and homophobes are religious people.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I'm a Militant Atheist because I despise religion and all its ills but it doesn't mean I am blind to the facts that simply because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they are automatically Queer allies and anti-imperialists; many militant atheists are great apologetics for Imperialism and Islamaphobia.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

American imperialism is based on Christianity. So were Spanish and British imperialism. Most racists and homophobes are religious people.

Pending on your definition of Imperialism. What era are you referring to exactly? Modern or antiquity? If antiquity than it isn't Imperialism as formulated by Lenin (as capitalism didn't exist during the ancient times).

[Revolution starts with U]

I honestly think he got pwnd by atheists on the concept of G-D and gave up on it. He was an "anarcho-calvinist" if you remember. This suggests to me that he was already pretty lenient with it, but thought his belief would guide his actions. You know, those anti-religous people who are still believers.

Elysian; I agree with you. Militant atheism, if guided in the right direction, is a must... let me rephrase... Militant secularism is a must, and unapologetic atheism is a must. Atheists should not fear expressing who they are. And religion must be kept out of public policy.

But Frans is right; being atheist doesn't automatically make you a leftist (for example; Stalin ;))

[hatzel]

This thread's guaranteed to end well for all involved, I think...

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

All imperialism is based in capitalism; religion is only an accessory to the crime.

[Renegade Saint]

Elysian; you don't actually think you're a marxist do you? I haven't followed your posting much, but the notion that we need to 'promote rational thought' via atheism is liberal nonsense.

What's your problem with Unitarians, Quakers and Jainists?

[Red Noob]

It's funny, because you're making extremely unfair generalizations about theists and atheists.

In my experience (in the real world, not that on the internet) the more religious people I know are kinder and more rationale independent thinkers who volunteer. The atheists I've met in real life are naive selfish liberals who are ultra self-righteous.

Therefore, by your logic, I should think religious institutions should oppress atheism.

(don't fuck with anyone's religion who isn't fucking with yours)

[Ocean Seal]

Everytime I see a post like this and the atheists putting up posters, I really just think that some people don't have a host of useful things to do. But hey, its your time waste it however you please.

[Azraella]

I must be the only one who has no interest in dictating what others must believe.

[Caj]

Religious nuts often side with the ruling class, encourage wars, justify racism and homophobia.

Although religion is often used to justify and perpetuate wars, racism, and homophobia, religion is not the cause of these things. Rather, all of these things -- war, racism, homophobia, and religion -- are offspring of class society. It's idealist nonsense, therefore, to believe that the elimination of religion alone will eliminate war, racism, and homophobia. Class society itself must be eliminated.

[Red Rabbit]

I've met far more atheists who have been complete douchebags trying to shove their "beliefs" (Or lack thereof) down my throat than any religious person.

If you ask me, militant atheism is the exact opposite of necessary.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I'm an atheist too, a militant and state atheist as a matter of fact, yet I do not agree with Elysian's analysis of American imperialism or the cause of American problems. You have to attribute things to material conditions before you start attributing things to abstract beliefs.

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm an atheist and am even arguing against Franz about this kind of thing in a different thread.

I find this stupid though.

Why should anyone be militant about their personal beliefs of gods and afterlife? Do you want to be against oppressive religious institutions? Cool, me too. That doesn't make me militant against religious and spiritual beliefs. People can believe whatever they wish about creation and death. Leave people the fuck alone.

Religion is the opium of the masses remember? Attack their problems not their pain-relevers.

[Decolonize The Left]

The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class. - Marx

It's not necessarily religion that's the problem but idealism, for which religion is the most glaring and incredibly self-refuting example. Idealism is supported by capitalism because capitalism props up idealism in its own interest (you know: freedom, equality, markets, blah blah). Destroy capitalism and you destroy idealism. Destroy idealism and religion disappears.

- August

[Ostrinski]

American imperialism is based on Christianity.You can't seriously believe this.

[Franz Fanonipants]

American imperialism is based on Christianity. So were Spanish and British imperialism. Most racists and homophobes are religious people.

laffo

[Franz Fanonipants]

Elysian; you don't actually think you're a marxist do you? I haven't followed your posting much, but the notion that we need to 'promote rational thought' via atheism is liberal nonsense.

when i say this i get yelled at

[Leftsolidarity]

Fucking hell can you post something other than one liners? I swear that's almost all you do. Why are you not getting infractions for this shit?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Fucking hell can you post something other than one liners? I swear that's almost all you do. Why are you not getting infractions for this shit?

report me? idk what you want

[Decolonize The Left]

report me? idk what you want

Really? You can't possibly figure out what it is that he's asking of you? He's asking you to be more responsible with your posting. I know it's hard but... well maybe it's too hard.

- August

[Franz Fanonipants]

Really? You can't possibly figure out what it is that he's asking of you? He's asking you to be more responsible with your posting. I know it's hard but... well maybe it's too hard.

- August

i'm responsible plenty. you'd have to be reading my posting p. selectively to pull a "gotcha" on me that i do nothing but oneliners.

[Bostana]

I'm a militant Communist who doesn't care about religion.

[Decolonize The Left]

i'm responsible plenty. you'd have to be reading my posting p. selectively to pull a "gotcha" on me that i do nothing but oneliners.

No, I'm not trying to pigeon-hole you. I have read plenty of your posts which are constructive, insightful, productive, and responsible. I've also waded through pages of crap from you which involve one-liners and random trolling/spamming.

Just keep it in mind.

- August

[antiracist]

My question is how do people combine "militant atheism" without insulting or upsetting (or even worse) for example the Muslim community, especially in the West?

[Franz Fanonipants]

No, I'm not trying to pigeon-hole you. I have read plenty of your posts which are constructive, insightful, productive, and responsible. I've also waded through pages of crap from you which involve one-liners and random trolling/spamming.

Just keep it in mind.

- August

bummer bro

[Rafiq]

Idealist Atheism is just as bad as religious-idealism.

[Drosophila]

This reminds me of when I used to subscribe to militant atheism, then I met religious people.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I think at the same time that people need to stop criticizing strong, unapologetic atheism. How can a belief centered around the denial of the most anti-materialist concept, the supernatural, be idealistic? And yeah, I do think my atheism is superior to theism and I also agree with militant state atheism. That does not make me idealistic or whatever.

[Ostrinski]

I think at the same time that people need to stop criticizing strong, unapologetic atheism. How can a belief centered around the denial of the most anti-materialist concept, the supernatural, be idealistic?It's not the criticism itself that is idealistic, it's the nature of the criticism. Anti-theism, i.e. the politicization of atheism is bourgeois and idealistic to the max. It trims the bush, so to speak, while if you are a materialist you know to take the problem by the root (bourgeois ideological hegemony)


And yeah, I do think my atheism is superior to theism and I also agree with militant state atheism. That does not make me idealistic or whatever.There is no need for state atheism. The remnants of bourgeois society will die on their own without the bourgeoisie.

[Althusser]

So, for all you religion apologetics, do you support the mandatory atheism started by Lenin and carried out by Stalin in the Soviet Union? This question applies to MLs and Trots as well since the state atheism can't be passed off by Trots as "just a Stalin fuck-up". Also, Marxists shouldn't defend religion under any circumstance. (the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions, opium of the people, theory of materialism??) :confused:

[Franz Fanonipants]

no one is defending religion. religion is not on the table, as its personal belief

we are criticizing a historically particular form of atheism

[RGacky3]

American imperialism is based on Christianity. So were Spanish and British imperialism. Most racists and homophobes are religious people.

Most PEOPLE are religious people ....

Also you can't seriously believe that christianity caused imperialism, no matter what ideology or religion is the promionant one, the ruling class will use it to defend whatever they are doing.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

What is idealistic atheism in your opinions? To me, the worst kind of atheism is the atheism of silence; when you are willing to sit around and accept the spread of such archaic lies that stifle proletariat solidarity and class struggle.

[Renegade Saint]

What is idealistic atheism in your opinions?
The belief that religion is the root of the problem, and that if everyone became an atheist things would be great. they see the fundamental divide in society as between the 'logical' (atheists) and the 'illogical' (theists). this should be antithetical to marxists for reasons too obvious to state.
Also, the notion that people adopt fundamentalist religious views simply as a result of "illogical thinking", rather than because of their own sense of alienation and a host of material factors.
I'd really like to hear people answer what their problem is with Unitarians and Quakers and other historically progressive religious groups.

[Caj]

What is idealistic atheism in your opinions?

In my opinion, idealist atheism involves the failure to recognize that religion is part of the societal superstructure, and that its existence, therefore, is fundamentally attributable to the economic basis of society, i.e., to society's mode of production. Failure to recognize this leads to absurd notions that religion is in some way "responsible" for other aspects of the societal superstructure (e.g. war, homophobia, racism, xenophobia, etc.), when in reality these things too are fundamentally determined by the economic basis of society, while the influence that religion does have on these other superstructural phenomena is simply to aid in their perpetuation. The abolition of religion, therefore, without a revolutionary transformation of the economic basis of society itself, will not eliminate any of these superstructural phenomena. Nearly all of the self-described "militant atheists" fail to realize this.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

The belief that religion is the root of the problem, and that if everyone became an atheist things would be great. they see the fundamental divide in society as between the 'logical' (atheists) and the 'illogical' (theists). this should be antithetical to marxists for reasons too obvious to state.
Also, the notion that people adopt fundamentalist religious views simply as a result of "illogical thinking", rather than because of their own sense of alienation and a host of material factors.

I'm not Bill Maher. I still believe in materialism over blaming problems on ideas (and yes, that viewpoint is still compatible with anti-revisionism, but this is not the place to talk about that). Like I said in a previous post, religion just agrivates the problems already caused by capitalism, because of the nature of religion being a tool of the ruling class, and perpetuates it, because it is inherently against materialist thought, which is at the center of the movement to liberate the proletariat.

[Ostrinski]

So, for all you religion apologetics, do you support the mandatory atheism started by Lenin and carried out by Stalin in the Soviet Union? This question applies to MLs and Trots as well since the state atheism can't be passed off by Trots as "just a Stalin fuck-up". Also, Marxists shouldn't defend religion under any circumstance. (the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions, opium of the people, theory of materialism??) :confused:Well it obviously didn't work anyway, the Russian Orthodox Church has over 100 million people. Why support a failed policy?

We don't defend or attack religion. If you think we are defending religion then you are misunderstanding the discussion. Any true materialist knows that attacking institutional religion or supporting institutional religion is futile because we know that it will always exist where it serves a function in relation to a given social structure and that it cannot exist where it serves no such function. As far as religion that is non-institutional goes (i.e. religion on a personal level), why attack it? That has nothing to do with the class struggle. Why would the organized proletariat go after religious people, when in no abstract way does it serve their interest at all? Unless of course you believe in, and you believe you are hypothetically part of, some external paternalistic elite club that needs to whip the proles into shape?


What is idealistic atheism in your opinions? To me, the worst kind of atheism is the atheism of silence; when you are willing to sit around and accept the spread of such archaic lies that stifle proletariat solidarity and class struggle.Idealistic atheism is political atheism. Atheism that is oriented only toward crushing religion of any kind for no reason other than tautological elitism (which makes it no different than organized religion) regardless of material circumstance or understanding of social function of religion.

Religion does no such thing in and of itself. It's the bourgeois class characterization of religion that is reactionary, not religion in itself.

[Franz Fanonipants]

the thing is guys we live in an ostensibly secular society

sure there are evangelicals and etc but their social influence is far less than that of capitalism/they really exist at the behest OF capital-the bourgeoisie

i'm for cutting down on clerical influence, proselytizing, and the material wealth of religions and religious institutions but if that was my main preoccupation guess what i would never be able to develop a working critique of capitalism because i would be super worried about the church

[Ostrinski]

it is inherently against materialist thought, which is at the center of the movement to liberate the proletariat.This is very anti-materialist. The proletariat don't liberate themselves because they read many books and understand 19th century philosophy, they liberate themselves because they respond to their class interest.

[Ostrinski]

the thing is guys we live in an ostensibly secular society

sure there are evangelicals and etc but their social influence is far less than that of capitalism/they really exist at the behest OF capital-the bourgeoisie

i'm for cutting down on clerical influence, proselytizing, and the material wealth of religions and religious institutions but if that was my main preoccupation guess what i would never be able to develop a working critique of capitalism because i would be super worried about the churchListening to some of these people you'd think this was feudal Europe with how much credit they're giving to the church as all powerful force.

And you're spot on about that point about evangelicals, everyone I know hates the damn bastards.

[The Jay]

It could happen from studying literature if there was an Enlightenment to occur in the culture of the proletariat, by which they are better able to act in their class interests.

[Drosophila]

So, for all you religion apologetics, do you support the mandatory atheism started by Lenin and carried out by Stalin in the Soviet Union? This question applies to MLs and Trots as well since the state atheism can't be passed off by Trots as "just a Stalin fuck-up". Also, Marxists shouldn't defend religion under any circumstance. (the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions, opium of the people, theory of materialism??) :confused:

If I'm correct, Lenin said that religion is something that is "ok" to be held in private, but that it can't be part of the state/government. Not like it should really matter much what he thought anyway....

[Renegade Saint]

It could happen from studying literature if there was an Enlightenment to occur in the culture of the proletariat, by which they are better able to act in their class interests.
Please don't use Marx in your quotes if you're going to say silly stuff like this.

I didn't become radicalized by studying literature. I became radicalized because capitalism was fucking me.

[The Jay]

I'll put whoever in my quotes that I see fit. You're not everyone so don't pretend to know what radicalizes everyone. To put words in other's mouths is much sillier than what I said.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

If I'm correct, Lenin said that religion is something that is "ok" to be held in private, but that it can't be part of the state/government. Not like it should really matter much what he thought anyway....

Yeah, he did say that.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

[NGNM85]

The belief that religion is the root of the problem,

I don’t think anyone, here, actually believes that religion is the root of all social ills. However; it, clearly, is a problem.


and that if everyone became an atheist things would be great.

It would very likely be better. However; again, I don’t think anybody, here, believes that this is the magic solution to humanity’s problems.


they see the fundamental divide in society as between the 'logical' (atheists) and the 'illogical' (theists). this should be antithetical to marxists for reasons too obvious to state.

Not to beat a dead horse, I don’t think anybody, here believes this.

One cannot be absolutely certain that an atheist will be more rational than a theist. However; we can be certain that a theist, by definition, will display some degree of irrationality, pertaining to issues that concern their religious beliefs.


Also, the notion that people adopt fundamentalist religious views simply as a result of "illogical thinking", rather than because of their own sense of alienation and a host of material factors.

I think there’s a number of reasons. People naturally seek out patterns, they like to put things into a narrative. They also tend to settle for simple answers, regardless of their validity. People have a natural fear of death. Religion serves social purposes, as well. It serves to reinforce mores, and values. Religion can also serve as the basis for community. As far religion simply being; ‘the cry of the oppressed’, that’s fairly obviously false.


I'd really like to hear people answer what their problem is with Unitarians and Quakers and other historically progressive religious groups.

There’s no such thing as good religions. Religion is, by definition, irrational, and there simply aren’t any good arguments for irrationality. That’s really the heart of it. Although; I would also make two other points, that, I think, are worth mentioning;

First; one cannot always predict the social consequences of religious dogma. Seemingly innocuous beliefs can sometimes have explosive consequences.

Second; by living in a culture that promotes irrationality, we create fertile soil for other forms of irrationality; conspiracy theory, etc.

That said, admittedly; some religions, admittedly, are worse than others. The thing is that these religions you mention are in the minority. Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who are, overwhelmingly, the most prolific perpetrators of religious violence, (unfortunately) comprise roughly two-thirds of the worlds’ faithful. It also makes a certain degree of sense to devote the most attention to the most violent, and disruptive sects.

[Positivist]

American Imperialism is the result of greedy capitalists, but the Christian ideology inspires many to execute the capitalists imperial agenda out of the belief that they are serving God. Modern Christianity is a key component of the superstructure supporting the capitalist economic base, and must therefore be eliminated.

[hatzel]

I have a list and self-confessed 'militant atheists' are on it. Just below EDL wallies and just above teenagers with floppy hair and skateboards. I won't tell you what the list is about exactly but I wouldn't consider it complimentary to be on it. Okay let's just say that if militant atheism is in fact necessary then before long my hand will be sore from all the slapping I'll inevitably find myself doing. I don't care what it does or doesn't do for 'the workers' or any shit like that - though directing people's outrage against religion and/or the religious, rather than that little thing called capitalism, could well be considered counter-revolution - only what it does for me and the satisfaction I get from excluding annoying people from my field of vision. But also yeah theocracy ftw stand in my way and feel my wrath oooooh yeah I'm super-scary. No but seriously y'all suck...

[Franz Fanonipants]

American Imperialism is the result of greedy capitalists, but the Christian ideology inspires many to execute the capitalists imperial agenda out of the belief that they are serving God. Modern Christianity is a key component of the superstructure supporting the capitalist economic base, and must therefore be eliminated.

you're 1/2 way there

[Lilith]

I have a list and self-confessed 'militant atheists' are on it. Just below EDL wallies and just above teenagers with floppy hair and skateboards. I won't tell you what the list is about exactly but I wouldn't consider it complimentary to be on it. Okay let's just say that if militant atheism is in fact necessary then before long my hand will be sore from all the slapping I'll inevitably find myself doing. I don't care what it does or doesn't do for 'the workers' or any shit like that - though directing people's outrage against religion and/or the religious, rather than that little thing called capitalism, could well be considered counter-revolution - only what it does for me and the satisfaction I get from excluding annoying people from my field of vision. But also yeah theocracy ftw stand in my way and feel my wrath oooooh yeah I'm super-scary. No but seriously y'all suck...

The only thing more annoying than militant atheists are religious anarkies.

[Caj]

American Imperialism is the result of greedy capitalists, but the Christian ideology inspires many to execute the capitalists imperial agenda out of the belief that they are serving God. Modern Christianity is a key component of the superstructure supporting the capitalist economic base, and must therefore be eliminated.

The societal superstructure is the product of the economic base. The elimination of the superstructure requires a revolutionary transformation of the economic base, i.e., a revolutionary change in the mode of production.

Also, the problem isn't that capitalists are "greedy". All humans are greedy in the sense that they follow their perceived material self-interests. The problem is that the self-interests of the capitalist, and furthermore the class interests of the capitalist class or bourgeoisie, are diametrically opposed to the self-interests of the individual worker and the class interests of the proletariat.

[Elysian]

Let's say a guy has a headache, and the disease XYZ is causing it. Would you tell the guy that his headache wouldn't exist were it not for XYZ, and therefore he shouldn't worry about his headache?

[Caj]

Let's say a guy has a headache, and the disease XYZ is causing it. Would you tell the guy that his headache wouldn't exist were it not for XYZ, and therefore he shouldn't worry about his headache?

No, I'd say let's eliminate the disease.

[Elysian]

No, I'd say let's eliminate the disease.

So until you eliminate the disease, you'll ask him to endure the headache?

[#FF0000]

American imperialism is based on Christianity. So were Spanish and British imperialism. Most racists and homophobes are religious people.

No imperialism was not based on religion. Religion was one of the many things folks used to justify it, but no state and no companies are going to stake out a claim in the New World or Darkest Africa to tell people about Jesus.

[Caj]

So until you eliminate the disease, you'll ask him to endure the headache?

The existence of headaches is an inevitability so long as the disease exists and so long as the headache serves a function.

[Veovis]

Wow, I never thought I'd see this much hating on atheism on a board full of communists!

[Caj]

Wow, I never thought I'd see this much hating on atheism on a board full of communists!

We're not hating on atheism, but the idealism of "militant atheism".

[Ostrinski]

I have a list and self-confessed 'militant atheists' are on it. Just below EDL wallies and just above teenagers with floppy hair and skateboards. I won't tell you what the list is about exactly but I wouldn't consider it complimentary to be on it.Shit.. is this like Robespierre's list of traitors where if we think we might be on it then we are traitors anyway

[dodger]

Whatever it takes, keep kicking those Christian, Muslims. Their places of worship are fast emptying. They even came and took Nan to church in a car after her leg was amputated.Though not a Christian herself she enjoyed the sing-song and tea/cakes afterwards. Trips to the seaside. All good stuff. Though her favourite was the Health visitor
He had dreadlocks, introduced her to Mr Robert Marley, she repaid him by rolling the perfect spliff, those years of fine needlework paid off. Such a light delicate touch. Once a week they would skin-up,and she would tell him all the stories she had told me over the years. The visit to Wild Bills Western Circus-Finishing school in Prussia, the only downside all the Mint Imperials were consumed by the time I got there. Never mind.

Just keep kicking the bastards- they love it.

http://www.realtor.ca/PropertyResults.aspx?Mode=5&id=15264088

Make a lovely home for a family-one previous owner-graveyard next door. Very convenient. :p

[Rusty Shackleford]

Religion is like a nail, the more you assault it, the farther its driven in.


regardless, it doesnt fucking matter what ones religious beliefs are.

[dodger]

Religion is like a nail, the more you assault it, the farther its driven in.


regardless, it doesnt fucking matter what ones religious beliefs are.

Not true, Rusty, though I hesitate to say what path to follow in the States. Personal beliefs are personal beliefs a truism. When those beliefs impinge on ones own freedoms it is another kettle of fish. Indoctrination of children attacks on Abortion are obvious along with family planning. Here if the beliefs are laughable or faintly deranged, then folk laugh. Or ignore...Irish and Polish accents heard in free family planning clinics are true testament. It seems a shame to be cruel to a Christian or Muslim . They do a far better job themselves at butchering each other, and themselves. The Church OF England always had the good sense to ignore the working classes. Content to be the Tory party at Prayer. (colonialists at prayer). These days beset by panic, in 15 yrs there will be no soul attending Sunday Worship. Expect an ill-conceived plan...forced indoctrination -faith schools-tv evanglicals and Jesus R O C K S ! THEN WE MUST INTERVENE, on all fronts. We don't want the likes of them putting the clock back centuries. Religious courts, they were disbanded 500yrs ago! Bawdey Courts. Both Wifey's were Trollopes that's why I married them. LAWS AGAINST BLASPHEMY...they should content themselves with listening to our lame jokes. What we think of these religious shit is unprintable and probably best left unsaid.

[Elysian]

The existence of headaches is an inevitability so long as the disease exists and so long as the headache serves a function.

You didn't answer the question: will you ask him to endure the headache until you try and eliminate the disease? Or will you give him painkillers to suppress the headache at least until a cure for the disease is found?

[hatzel]

...so why exactly must every discussion on this forum be conducted through weak metaphors? Cows, headaches...I mean use metaphors by all means, but the whole point of doing that is to make things easier to follow. Not to talk about unrelated stuff as if it's relevant.

[dodger]

...so why exactly must every discussion on this forum be conducted through weak metaphors? Cows, headaches...I mean use metaphors by all means, but the whole point of doing that is to make things easier to follow. Not to talk about unrelated stuff as if it's relevant.

It's a pain in the bloody arse. Udder nonsense.

[Caj]

You didn't answer the question: will you ask him to endure the headache until you try and eliminate the disease? Or will you give him painkillers to suppress the headache at least until a cure for the disease is found?

It's a poor analogy to begin with. Religion can't be eliminated so long as it serves a function and is produced by the economic basis of society.

[Caj]

It's a pain in the bloody arse. Udder nonsense.

I see what you did there.

[Franz Fanonipants]

religion creates a (arguably incorrect) model of the upside-down world for coping with the upside-down worlds that feudalism and capitalism create.

christianity especially.

but no guys you see capitalism is an ulcer while religion is bleeding at the mouth and we need to get rid of the symptom wait shit

[dodger]

I see what you did there.

I am so ashamed......I had my forefinger hovering for all of 7 secs. over the @submit @ button. "Go on-go on" the voice said...before I could come to my senses...........oh well it's done.

[NGNM85]

Religion is like a nail, the more you assault it, the farther its driven in.

It depends on the individual, and on the approach. Obviously; some religious people are susceptible to rational arguments. For example; Richard Dawkins' website has a section filled with testimonials from former believers.


regardless, it doesnt fucking matter what ones religious beliefs are.

Of course it does. Belief systems, ultimately, influence behavior, in predictable ways. Of course; this isn't limited to religion. We should not be surprised by the lack of Hindu steakhouses, any more than we should be surprised by the correlation between Neo-Nazi ideation, and racially motivated violence. On the contrary; this is to be expected.

[Veovis]

We're not hating on atheism, but the idealism of "militant atheism".

Maybe, but the definition of "militant atheism" seems to be pretty broad around here. And not just in this thread. I remember a while back a thread about a girl who stood up to her public school's display of a 'prayer banner' (in the nominally secular USA, where such things are illegal) and she was attacked heavily by several posters.

[Left Leanings]

A point to note: atheism is simply the expression of the intellectual position, that god does not exist. In and of itself, it does not denote that a person is more or less likely to be moral, or kind, imperialist, or anti-imperialist, socialist or non-socialist.

I am a secular humanist, and a former member of the National Secular Society, the most outspoken and militant organization in the British freethought and humanist movement.

Secular humanists are atheists, but our lack of belief in god takes on a concern for humanity as well. Secular humanists are behind many campaigns and progressive causes, such as penal reform, animal welfare, abolition of the Death Penalty, gay and lesbian equality, anti-racism and anti-fascism.

There is, you might say, a lot of 'red' in secular humanism. My being a Marxist as well, by way of illustration.

[Franz Fanonipants]

too bad marxism is not a humanist philosophy[1]

[1] laffo humanism "embraces reason, ethics, and justice"

basically it is the most liberal shit around

this owns. from the Council for Secular Humanism's "Dangerous Reading" section:

"In April 2009, the U.N. will host a world conference on racism. Under the guise of protecting racial minorities, this event is likely to produce additional resolutions limiting free speech where it treads on cultural or religious sensitivities. A draft declaration written in Abuja, Nigeria, in preparation for the 2009 conference calls upon states to avoid “inflexibly clinging to free speech in defiance of the sensitivities existing in a society and with absolute disregard for religious feelings.” Like many of the HRC “racism” and “religious freedom” resolutions passed in recent years, this declaration focuses primarily on “Islamophobia,” seeking to paint all critical discussion of Islam, Islamic states, or Islamic organizations as racist and potentially violent. The trend of enshrining special protection for Islam (or more accurately, protection for rulers of Islamic states and their particular interpretations of Islam) is now pervasive. Will those who value human rights and free expression gather the will to resist this trend?"

[Yefim Zverev]

There are many reasons as to why militant atheism is necessary, such as encouraging rational thought, but there are important political reasons too. Religious nuts often side with the ruling class, encourage wars, justify racism and homophobia. What's worse, followers of these religious leaders swallow all this propaganda and become a threat to others.

Consider Iraq war. All evangelical nuts like Stanley, Mac etc. were supporting it, comparing saddam to nebuchadnezzar, so gullible followers believe that history is repeating itself. So they support war, while in their minds they're supporting doctrine. Another example is homophobia. Followers, like blind sheep, do what their pastors say. If the pastors say homosexuality is evil, these blind idiots believe it without questioning.

Atheists, otoh, are not tied to any irrational ideology, so they can plan their actions according to material conditions and not worry about upsetting the church or pastor or god. They care about logic, so their thoughts and behavior are going to reflect some sanity.

So I feel militant atheism is a must. Give religious nuts an inch and they take a mile.

I appreciate very much that you have purged the religious rubbish from your soul.

You are on the good way. The way of light out of the cave without all the metaphysical mythological load of religions.

This guy's restriction should be removed. He should be able to post freely in revleft.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I appreciate very much that you have purged the religious rubbish from your soul.

this is the best thing i read on revleft today

e: its also really likely that OP is a white supremacist troll

[Red Rabbit]

I appreciate very much that you have purged the religious rubbish from your soul.

A M-L talking about purging things; definitely not stereotypical at all.

[Franz Fanonipants]

A M-L talking about purging things; definitely not stereotypical at all.

i mean i am an m-l and want to purge all the time but the best part is a *lol* "secularist" talking about purging the soul

[Astarte]

What does militant atheism have to do with fighting capitalism and the state. Before the state existed there was spirituality, and it will probably exist after the state is gone as well. Seems like militant atheism does more to divide the left than any thing. I mean, I am pretty sure theists who are also communists are going to be anti-fundamentalists, so what is the big deal about letting people believe what they want to believe - focus on capitalism, please.

[Red Rabbit]

What does militant atheism have to do with fighting capitalism and the state.

It's everything apparently. lol


Seems like militant atheism does more to divide the left than any thing.

Should have gladiatorial combat between both sides, Theists vs Atheists. Then it would at least be entertaining.

[Franz Fanonipants]

It's everything apparently. lol

guys ideas are the problem not relation to the means of production

capitalism is just an idea

if only we could defeat the idea of capitalism

[Yefim Zverev]

troll thread reported. now everybody trollin

[Astarte]

troll thread reported. now everybody trollin

How was this not a troll thread from the original post? It seems like every time we settle that whether or not god exists really doesn't matter someone (like an ex-anarcho-Calvinist) has the bright idea to start it all up again. How does anyone go from changing their beliefs - political or spiritual in a week or two anyway. I would say its some kind opportunism ... but, opportunism with the goal of what exactly, acceptance? ...

EDIT: Now that I think of it, maybe I can understand the sudden drop of Calvinism, but why also drop Anarchism in favor of Soviet style Marxism so quickly? It just shows no real theoretical grounding in either Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Anarchism or theology.

[Franz Fanonipants]

EDIT: Now that I think of it, maybe I can understand the sudden drop of Calvinism, but why also drop Anarchism in favor of Soviet style Marxism so quickly? It just shows no real theoretical grounding in either Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Anarchism or theology.

he isn't a soviet style marxist either as he's in love w/dawkins

[Red Rabbit]

he isn't a soviet style marxist either as he's in love w/dawkins

I heard it's not a very healthy relationship, either.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I heard it's not a very healthy relationship, either.

dawkins was like "should we support christian fundamentalists against elysian because the lesser of two evils wait jk"

[Veovis]

from the Council for Secular Humanism's "Dangerous Reading" section:

"In April 2009, the U.N. will host a world conference on racism. Under the guise of protecting racial minorities, this event is likely to produce additional resolutions limiting free speech where it treads on cultural or religious sensitivities. A draft declaration written in Abuja, Nigeria, in preparation for the 2009 conference calls upon states to avoid “inflexibly clinging to free speech in defiance of the sensitivities existing in a society and with absolute disregard for religious feelings.” Like many of the HRC “racism” and “religious freedom” resolutions passed in recent years, this declaration focuses primarily on “Islamophobia,” seeking to paint all critical discussion of Islam, Islamic states, or Islamic organizations as racist and potentially violent. The trend of enshrining special protection for Islam (or more accurately, protection for rulers of Islamic states and their particular interpretations of Islam) is now pervasive. Will those who value human rights and free expression gather the will to resist this trend?"

I don't see anything objectionable in this. Are you saying a religious minority should have the right to retaliate against someone who injures their religious sensibilities? I guess you'd like to see blasphemy laws make a comeback.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't see anything objectionable in this.

that's real nice

e: except you're literally a liberal if this is something that you are overly concerned with

[Positivist]

[QUOTE=Caj;2399451]The societal superstructure is the product of the economic base. The elimination of the superstructure requires a revolutionary transformation of the economic base, i.e., a revolutionary change in the mode of production

I agree but it is important to recognize that the societal superstructure produced by capitalism can and will outlive the capitalist mode of production if we let it. In the period immediately following the establishment of a socialist mode of production, the enduring capitalist superstructure will exist as a counterrevolution in itself, inspiring people to fight for the restoration of the capitalist base. Therefore to oppose the capitalist base we must oppose the capitalist superstructure in like fashion.

[gorillafuck]

that's real nice

e: except you're literally a liberal if this is something that you are overly concerned withLenin was a militant atheist

[Veovis]

that's real nice

e: except you're literally a liberal if this is something that you are overly concerned with

Not overly concerned; there are a lot more pressing matters that need attending to.

However, someone who thinks that religious bigotry is beyond reproach is just simply wrong and is probably lacking a truly dialectical outlook.

Is a religious fanatic justified in assaulting me for wearing a t-shirt lampooning his favorite prophet? Is he justified in assaulting me if I (as a man) kiss my boyfriend in public?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Lenin was a militant atheist

you're right

its a good thing i'm not one of his contemporaries

e: actually no he wasn't because we're still talking about a historically particular form of "disbelief" and not general atheism but its cool i know what you're implying

[Franz Fanonipants]

N\Is a religious fanatic justified in assaulting me for wearing a t-shirt lampooning his favorite prophet? Is he justified in assaulting me if I (as a man) kiss my boyfriend in public?

yes, no

[Veovis]

yes, no

Why one and not the other?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Why one and not the other?

being an american c. 2001 - 2012

e: or even simpler, you can choose to wear a shirt making fun of Muhammad

you can't choose not to be gay

[Veovis]

being an american c. 2001 - 2012

e: or even simpler, you can choose to wear a shirt making fun of Muhammad

you can't choose not to be gay

I didn't ask if he would be justified in attacking me for being gay. I asked if he would be justified in attacking me for kissing my boyfriend in public.

I could choose not to kiss my boyfriend just like I could choose not to wear the shirt.

So I ask again, why is one ok and not the other?

[Franz Fanonipants]

I didn't ask if he would be justified in attacking me for being gay. I asked if he would be justified in attacking me for kissing my boyfriend in public.

ok then go with the imperialist answer that you've ignored

[Franz Fanonipants]

is a black man entitled to assault me if i wear a t-shirt with a blackface character on it please let me know i am dying to know also give me ethical rationale because

e: i am a simple unbeliever what is wrong with my unbelief being used to instigate conflicts w/the subaltern

[Veovis]

is a black man entitled to assault me if i wear a t-shirt with a blackface character on it please let me know i am dying to know also give me ethical rationale because

e: i am a simple unbeliever what is wrong with my unbelief being used to instigate conflicts w/the subaltern

I can barely parse these "sentences," but I'll give it a shot:

Skin color is a physical, inherent, and generally immutable trait, while no one is born with a religion.

[Franz Fanonipants]

lol yeah that's a good point bro tx blacks are essentially oppressed i will remember that

e: can you prove that people are born w/out religion because tbh im not sure thats correct

like for sure i don't know what a baby thinks about God but for sure i also know babies are born into religious families and cultures and traditions and shit and so

[Pretty Flaco]

lol yeah that's a good point bro tx blacks are essentially oppressed i will remember that

e: can you prove that people are born w/out religion because tbh im not sure thats correct

like for sure i don't know what a baby thinks about God but for sure i also know babies are born into religious families and cultures and traditions and shit and so

i have no idea what you guys are talking about because i didnt read the other pages, but religion is often closely connected to ethnicity.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i have no idea what you guys are talking about because i didnt read the other pages, but religion is often closely connected to ethnicity.

veovis just made the point clear that if muslims around the world just would stop being muslims then the US would stop imperialist wars against them and then everyone could be happy and dress up as zombie muhammad and jesus and moses for halloween without the heart-seizing fear of being called an asshole

[Pretty Flaco]

veovis just made the point clear that if muslims around the world just would stop being muslims then the US would stop imperialist wars against them and then everyone could be happy and dress up as zombie muhammad and jesus and moses for halloween without the heart-seizing fear of being called an asshole

well i doubt that religion has much to do at all with any modern economic imperialism. for instance, the US has had a very large presence in south america, where the majority is catholic.

[Franz Fanonipants]

well i doubt that religion has much to do at all with any modern economic imperialism. for instance, the US has had a very large presence in south america, where the majority is catholic.

i agree 100%

but afghanistan, iraq, yemen, somalia, pakistan, etc. all have of late (in the last decade) been the US' military focus during a war whose rhetoric aligned an existential threat to the US (especially the US' "freedoms," "rights," and "way of life") w/islam

[Veovis]

veovis just made the point clear that if muslims around the world just would stop being muslims then the US would stop imperialist wars against them and then everyone could be happy and dress up as zombie muhammad and jesus and moses for halloween without the heart-seizing fear of being called an asshole

Where did I mention anything about Muslims, the U.S. or imperialism? You're both dishonest and illegible.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Where did I mention anything about Muslims, the U.S. or imperialism? You're both dishonest and illegible.

oh im sorry you're right, i just assumed since what i posted was explicitly about punishing those damn sassy muslims you were referring to islam

well i mean if you're talking about wearing a t-shirt disrespecting moses or abraham i imagine you've probably got a few concerns about being a fascist to deal with and if you are an anti-semite fascist you probably deserve to be assaulted

if you get beat up for wearing a t-shirt disrespecting christ well i mean i don't sign off on it myself as a christian so

if you want to make fun of bahaullah well its probably a safer t-shirt to wear

e: almost like there's not this monolithic meme called THEISM

[Pretty Flaco]

well i mean if you're talking about wearing a t-shirt disrespecting moses or abraham i imagine you've probably got a few concerns about being a fascist to deal with and if you are an anti-semite fascist you probably deserve to be assaulted



maybe he's a jewish hipster

[Franz Fanonipants]

maybe he's a jewish hipster

i would accept that i mean i'm not sure how many jews are going to attack someone for wearing a prophet slander shirt too

[The Machine]

dawkins was like \\\\\\\"should we support christian fundamentalists against elysian because the lesser of two evils wait jk\\\\\\\"

Yeah and Castro said some nasty things about gay people. Just because you generally agree with someone or are influenced by their thought doesn\'t mean you have to agree with every single thing they say.
Anyways trying to tie atheism with imperialism is pretty dumb because historically religious organizations, the Church especially, backed imperial conquest pretty hard. Hell racism as we know it today pretty much stems from the whole \"heathen\" othering of native americans, africans, and asians.
Plus anti-imperialism in 2012, when every country in the world is imperialist, is stupid as hell. It would be bad politics back in 1960 when the USSR was anti-imperialist while pursuing it\'s own imperialist agenda, but the extent of it is going to a PSL rally or something and cheering on the bloodbath when foreign workers kill US workers in battle like some kind of fucked up reverse patriot. Rooting for the underdog in capitalist wars has nothing to do with class politics, leftism, or atheism for that matter.

Also lol at people who think someone deserves to get x punishment for wearing a T Shirt while simultaneously mocking the concept of justice and saying that ideas dont matter.

[hatzel]

maybe he's a jewish hipster

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsxh5fTUf21r2gleko1_500.jpg

Also lol at people who think someone deserves to get x punishment for wearing a T Shirt while simultaneously mocking the concept of justice and saying that ideas dont matter.

I hope you apply these arguments universally. I mean I hope when you look at this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/preacher-tells-jews-t169235/index.html) or maybe this one (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ukrainian-newspaper-depicting-t169542/index.html) you instantly turn around all "hah actually it's okay to be a massive bigot because that's just an idea nothing more." Because the deal here is that being 'okay' with derogatory and antagonistic statements directed against oppressed minority communities isn't 'okay' at all. And it doesn't actually matter which community is targetted and it doesn't actually matter who targets them; there's no difference between "in the interests of the white race...kill all the blacks!" and "in the interests of the proletariat...kill all the blacks!" or whatever other justification you could come up with for being a dickhead, and being all "well atheists can play along with Islamophobic rhetoric and alienate Muslims in society, because atheists are proper coolio so they can't be racist!" is a muggish position to hold.


i would accept that i mean i'm not sure how many jews are going to attack someone for wearing a prophet slander shirt too

Well I'm always looking for a good excuse to have a row so I'm sure I could make it happen :lol:

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yeah and Castro said some nasty things about gay people. Just because you generally agree with someone or are influenced by their thought doesn\'t mean you have to agree with every single thing they say.
Anyways trying to tie atheism with imperialism is pretty dumb because historically religious organizations, the Church especially, backed imperial conquest pretty hard. Hell racism as we know it today pretty much stems from the whole \"heathen\" othering of native americans, africans, and asians.


nope sorry bro

which is to say that you don't actually know how that process worked and you sure can't universalize it

for sure Spanish imperial might heathen-othered Blacks and Indians entirely differently than Dutch and British imperialists did, or even than French and Comanche imperialists (who were most directly in their sphere of coexistence) did. and then there's the issue of imperialists heathen-othering Indians in the 1500s entirely different than they do in the late-eighteenth and nineteenth century (which is what we tend to think of when we think of imperialism).

what you just did there is what we call historical reductionism and it makes you look like you're reaching pretty hard to make a blanket statement about a materialist phenomena that has a lot of moving parts.

e: literally every post from you reads like you got an excuse to believe whatever you already believed because you discovered leftist thought and it kind of owns

[Elysian]

Tell a religious guy that a few rich people control most resources, and he'll chide you: don't be envious. Tell a religious guy that a few privileged people hold a grip over many billions, and he'll say: life isn't fair, it's their sin/karma. Tell a religious guy that we must fight back, and he'll advise you: be tolerant, it's immoral to hold a grudge.

Etc. etc. Point is, religious folks value their misguided sense of morality (which is practically indistinguishable from immorality from a victim's PoV) over material conditions. Clear thinking suffers as a result. Activism gives way to resignation and philosophical despair. This demoralizes workers, paralyzes our movement.

Therefore, religion must be eliminated.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Tell a religious guy that a few rich people control most resources, and he'll chide you: don't be envious. Tell a religious guy that a few privileged people hold a grip over many billions, and he'll say: life isn't fair, it's their sin/karma. Tell a religious guy that we must fight back, and he'll advise you: be tolerant, it's immoral to hold a grudge.

cool systematic thought comrade

[Yefim Zverev]

Tell a religious guy that a few rich people control most resources, and he'll chide you: don't be envious. Tell a religious guy that a few privileged people hold a grip over many billions, and he'll say: life isn't fair, it's their sin/karma. Tell a religious guy that we must fight back, and he'll advise you: be tolerant, it's immoral to hold a grudge.

Etc. etc. Point is, religious folks value their misguided sense of morality (which is practically indistinguishable from immorality from a victim's PoV) over material conditions. Clear thinking suffers as a result. Activism gives way to resignation and philosophical despair. This demoralizes workers, paralyzes our movement.

Therefore, religion must be eliminated.

You have seen the light comrade, there is no turning back. Ignore the arrogant people around here on the forums who satisfy themselves with useless cynicism and join the struggle of true laborers in the streets.

Your starting point is the best. Many good philosophers and activists even decided to join church and they turned back 180 degrees later. You have witnessed the deepest obscurity in the religion. You have witnessed how false it is. Now there is no turning back !

[Franz Fanonipants]

useless passionate rhetoric is no substitution for revolution

[RGacky3]

Tell a religious guy that a few rich people control most resources, and he'll chide you: don't be envious. Tell a religious guy that a few privileged people hold a grip over many billions, and he'll say: life isn't fair, it's their sin/karma. Tell a religious guy that we must fight back, and he'll advise you: be tolerant, it's immoral to hold a grudge.


THats total bullshit, some of the people on the forfront of social movements, in fact a huge percentage of them have been religious people and have done it for religious reasons.


Etc. etc. Point is, religious folks value their misguided sense of morality (which is practically indistinguishable from immorality from a victim's PoV) over material conditions. Clear thinking suffers as a result. Activism gives way to resignation and philosophical despair. This demoralizes workers, paralyzes our movement.

So are you claiming that religion is the source of morality???

[Yefim Zverev]

useless passionate rhetoric is no substitution for revolution

Even servile curs of capitalism are fueled by delusional passion to defeat us. More than logic we need to stand before them. Courage and passion at least, we must ally with them until the goals are reached.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Even servile curs of capitalism are fueled by delusional passion to defeat us. More than logic we need to stand before them. Courage and passion at least, we must ally with them until the goals are reached.

so be logical and realize saying "ALL RELIGIOUS ARE X THEREFORE Y" is pretty illogical and stupid

[Franz Fanonipants]

no religious people are not victims, it is only the marxist atheist intellectual who is oppressed by capitalism

[Yefim Zverev]

so be logical and realize saying "ALL RELIGIOUS ARE X THEREFORE Y" is pretty illogical and stupid

No it is not.

According to your source of logic perhaps.

[Franz Fanonipants]

No it is not.

According to your source of logic perhaps.

ok, so if proletarians are oppressed by capital, but all religious people are abetters of capital then are all proletarians therefore not religious? are religious proles class enemies?

whats the interplay here comrade, how do you suss this shit out?

[Yefim Zverev]

Each religious person is an obstacle in front of a global labor struggle. Every single of them.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Each religious person is an obstacle in front of a global labor struggle. Every single of them.

more empty rhetoric

what form does this religious obstacle take? is it a strait jacket on the body of every worker?

[Yefim Zverev]

Elysian has explained all well. I don't intend to repeat him.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Elysian has explained all well. I don't intend to repeat him.

i don't think he's explained shit about how religion is an obstacle to class struggle

instead he's repeatedly relied on liberal ideas (and by liberal i mean eighteenth century) about how religion robs the religious of their ability to perform material analysis through magical idea fairies that put blinders on people

this is patently false and reactionary regardless of what rhetorical spin you are putting on it to make it "communist"

religion is dangerous to communism and workers insofar as its institutional might is levied against worker's struggles.

but religious people are on both sides of class struggle and your inability to comprehend that will be your ultimate failure

[Red Rabbit]

Elysian has explained all well. I don't intend to repeat him.

I hope no one repeats him ever again. We don't need anymore of his moronic shit clogging the forums.

[Franz Fanonipants]

these truly are the wages of the killer memes: God, Jesus, and Chruch

[Yefim Zverev]

It's not an inability comprehend, all is based on facts.
I am not against people believing in god in their heads but organized religions have their own structures rooted in the capitalist system.
If they must believe then it should stay in their heads. There is not 1 acre in the universe to be given to religious maniacs.

[Franz Fanonipants]

yeah im sure that idealist totalism is going to work out real well for you

[Franz Fanonipants]

I am not against people believing in god in their heads but organized religions have their own structures rooted in the capitalist system.

oh shit this thread just became the religious version of all the porn and prostitution threads

e: which is to say you are a moralist communist therefore useless

[Yefim Zverev]

Religion is like bacteria, let it slip into communism it will plague in the very second.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Religion is like bacteria, let it slip into communism it will plague in the very second.

comrade talking in slogans is rabid fundamentalism

marxism is about material analysis not dogma

you're a crazy dude

[Yefim Zverev]

Material analysis of religions may take many books. Deconstruct my sentences and you will see the light of materialist perspective.

[The Machine]

If god did exist he would have to be abolished doe

[Franz Fanonipants]

material analysis of religion is easy:

human beings are confronted with a pretty bleak world (made by capitalism or feudalism before it) and try to imagine a reordered world

[Franz Fanonipants]

If god did exist he would have to be abolished doe

thats some mystic shit

[Yefim Zverev]

If we can not purify the masses from religious indoctrination and metaphysics how are they going to have proper understanding of materialism ? Whole Marxism is based on that as you say yourself.

[The Machine]

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsxh5fTUf21r2gleko1_500.jpg


I hope you apply these arguments universally. I mean I hope when you look at this thread (\"http://www.revleft.com/vb/preacher-tells-jews-t169235/index.html\") or maybe this one (\"http://www.revleft.com/vb/ukrainian-newspaper-depicting-t169542/index.html\") you instantly turn around all \"hah actually it\'s okay to be a massive bigot because that\'s just an idea nothing more.\" Because the deal here is that being \'okay\' with derogatory and antagonistic statements directed against oppressed minority communities isn\'t \'okay\' at all. And it doesn\'t actually matter which community is targetted and it doesn\'t actually matter who targets them; there\'s no difference between \"in the interests of the white race...kill all the blacks!\" and \"in the interests of the proletariat...kill all the blacks!\" or whatever other justification you could come up with for being a dickhead, and being all \"well atheists can play along with Islamophobic rhetoric and alienate Muslims in society, because atheists are proper coolio so they can\'t be racist!\" is a muggish position to hold.


No, what I\'m saying if you think the problem is a T-shirt or that a T-shirt deserves action taken against it you are not a materialist. Especially if in one breath youre mocking the concept of justice and in the next youre fantasizing about what a good punishment for an asshole in an objectionable shirt is.

[Franz Fanonipants]

If we can not purify the masses from religious indoctrination and metaphysics how are they going to have proper understanding of materialism ? Whole Marxism is based on that as you say yourself.

because people aren't automatons that only have one way of dealing with life

[The Machine]

thats some mystic shit

if you think anarchism is mysticism

[Franz Fanonipants]

if you think anarchism is mysticism

i do cus it isn't marxism

[Yefim Zverev]

You are either a believer or a proper marxist or communist. as you call it. Grays are obstacles.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You are either a believer or a proper marxist or communist. as you call it. Grays are obstacles.

this is the best thing i read on revleft today

[The Machine]

i do cus it isn\'t marxism

best marxist analysis ever

[Yefim Zverev]

You like it or not that is truth. First you must be a proper communist/marxist and then you can be writer, actor, artist, sportsman, doctor, engineer or whatever. Being a marxist does not make you automaton. Only religions make you automaton with dogmas.

The only idea to unite people is communism and religions are there to separate them with own dogmas.

[Franz Fanonipants]

best marxist analysis ever

anarchists don't believe in the mat'l dialectic bro they basically are like a religion except w/out dialectic reasoning at all

e: anarchism is white as hell

[Franz Fanonipants]

You like it or not that is truth. First you must be a proper communist/marxist and then you can be writer, actor, artist, sportsman, doctor, engineer or whatever. Being a marxist does not make you automaton. Only religions make you automaton with dogmas.

The only idea to unite people is communism and religions are there to separate them with own dogmas.

you're not wrong but being a "proper" communist is just like being a "observant" religious person

e: which is to say that no one will like you and you're still going to be filled with plenty of doubt and will struggle because you're stupidly trying to live up to a dogma without really understanding it

[The Machine]

anarchists don\'t believe in the mat\'l dialectic bro they basically are like a religion except w/out dialectic reasoning at all

e: anarchism is white as hell

Yeah but I mean dialectical materialism was mostly some old soviet bullshit anyways, you ML\'s really are stuck in the cold war.

Anarchists are probably harder to troll than revleft white people but good luck with that big homie

[hatzel]

When I see idiotic leftists saying idiotic things I come to consider being called an 'obstacle' quite the compliment, as it is surely a noble duty to oppose such bullshit. So yes I'm proud to be an 'obstacle' to pseudo-socialism and the kinds of reactionary bile teeming throughout this thread and others like it.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yeah but I mean dialectical materialism was mostly some old soviet bullshit anyways, you ML\'s really are stuck in the cold war.

hahaha what

did you even bother wikipedia'ing dialectical materialism

[The Machine]

Nope.

I'm not big on philosophy but iirc dialectical materialism was bascially just the official philosophy of the USSR and wasn't accepted by non-Leninists. I know Marx didnt say shit about it in the Manifesto.

[Bostana]

What would be the point of militiant Atheism anyway?

Kill people who don't renounce their faiyth in God?
That's just what early religions did and that is just as fascist.

[Rusty Shackleford]

What would be the point of militiant Atheism anyway?

Kill people who don't renounce their faiyth in God?
That's just what early religions did and that is just as fascist.
killing people over beliefs/politics is not fascism. fyi.



militant atheism is pretty much annoying. at least how it is in the US is just a bunch of "separation of church and state" legal shit and "oh no theres a cross next to the highway!"


im not fond of churches but i dont give enough of a fuck to dedicate my life to getting crosses off of hill tops or off the side of the highway.

[hatzel]

I know Marx didnt say shit about it in the Manifesto.

Oh this is some serious lol.

What texts have you read?

[Yefim Zverev]

When I see idiotic leftists saying idiotic things I come to consider being called an 'obstacle' quite the compliment, as it is surely a noble duty to oppose such bullshit. So yes I'm proud to be an 'obstacle' to pseudo-socialism and the kinds of reactionary bile teeming throughout this thread and others like it.

Peace & Love brother

[hatzel]

Peace & Love brother

No peace for the infidel.

[Bostana]

killing people over beliefs/politics is not fascism. fyi.

No,
but if you force your beliefs on them and they reject them and you kill them that is fascist.
ie Hitler would kill those who question is authority

[Revolution starts with U]

anarchists don't believe in the mat'l dialectic bro they basically are like a religion except w/out dialectic reasoning at all

e: anarchism is white as hell

Nice generalization bro. You do know saying "all x are y" is pretty stupid and illogical?

[Franz Fanonipants]

I know Marx didnt say shit about it in the Manifesto.

oh shit you read the manifesto!

[hatzel]

No,
but if you force your beliefs on them and they reject them and you kill them that is fascist.
ie Hitler would kill those who question is authority

Sorry but no that's not what fascism is at all. But that's not the topic so let's drop it.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Nice generalization bro. You do know saying "all x are y" is pretty stupid and illogical?

signed,
a concerned ultraleft

[Revolution starts with U]

just sayin :rolleyes:

[Franz Fanonipants]

just sayin :rolleyes:

stop having dumb political opinions comrade

[Revolution starts with U]

stop having dumb political opinions comrade

Stop projecting.

[hatzel]

Everybody stop everything.

[Yefim Zverev]

the thread has turned into troll meeting

[Ostrinski]

Can't expect anything else in the 1000000000th militant atheist thread

[Revolution starts with U]

Everybody stop everything.

make total destroy? :wub:

[Bostana]

Sorry but no that's not what fascism is at all. But that's not the topic so let's drop it.

Forcing a right wing view is Fascism.

[Caj]

Forcing a right wing view is Fascism.

Ok :rolleyes:

[hatzel]

Forcing a right wing view is Fascism.

Still no. But again I say let's drop it, because the only thing we have more than the boring shitty atheist thread is the boring shitty what is fascism thread so let's not merge them both into one doubly shitty thread, okay?

[Caj]

Still no. But again I say let's drop it, because the only thing we have more than the boring shitty atheist thread is the boring shitty what is fascism thread so let's not merge them both into one doubly shitty thread, okay?

It might make it easier though, if we were to merge all of the shitty threads into one ultra-shitty thread.

[hatzel]

It might make it easier though, if we were to merge all of the shitty threads into one ultra-shitty thread.

So what you mean to say is that the whole of RevLeft should be reduced to a single thread?

[Red Rabbit]

Oh for fuck's sake, is this shit still going on?

[Azraella]

Oh for fuck's sake, is this shit still going on?

Apparently so.


anarchists don't believe in the mat'l dialectic bro they basically are like a religion except w/out dialectic reasoning at all

e: anarchism is white as hell

It depends on the anarchist and the sub-tendency. I use Marxian analysis and economics though I fuse it with anarchist theory(I also like aspects of left communism) but other anarchists like Kropotkin avoided heavy economic theory. Also most leftist activists I have encountered are white. Anarchism isn't unusual in this light.

[Franz Fanonipants]

It depends on the anarchist and the sub-tendency. I use Marxian analysis and economics though I fuse it with anarchist theory(I also like aspects of left communism) but other anarchists like Kropotkin avoided heavy economic theory. Also most leftist activists I have encountered are white. Anarchism isn't unusual in this light.

it was a joke on stupid The Machine see elsewhere on rev left dot com

[Ostrinski]

Whenever I see this thread pop up in the Latest Posts feed I laugh a little.

[Yuppie Grinder]

All imperialism is based in capitalism; religion is only an accessory to the crime.
Imperialism existed prior to the bourgeois era, although it manifested in a different form.

[Kyu Six]

Religion is not the disease. It is a symptom of the disease, which is that people's basic needs go unfulfilled in the current social system (capitalism). If people are educated, have food to eat, and have healthy social interactions with other people, they have no need for religion. Just as the state will wither away as mankind progresses towards communism, so will religion. I don't think we need to be antagonistic towards people of faith, but I also don't think we should pretend that truth and objective reality do not matter, either. It's a balancing act between being compassionate to our fellow human beings who may harbor religious delusions and advancing science and education. I don't think I lost my faith by realizing that much of what I believed was fantastic and delusional, but by realizing that as I've learned more about life and the world we live in, there wasn't any need for a god anymore.

[Caj]

Imperialism existed prior to the bourgeois era, although it manifested in a different form.

Sure, but even accepting that the term "imperialism" is an accurate description for pre-capitalist expansionism, I think his or her point was that imperialism is rooted in society's mode of production. With the current mode of production being capitalism, I don't think it really changes what he or she said.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Sure, but even accepting that the term "imperialism" is an accurate description for pre-capitalist expansionism, I think his or her point was that imperialism is rooted in society's mode of production. With the current mode of production being capitalism, I don't think it really changes what he or she said.
true

[NGNM85]

Religion is not the disease. It is a symptom of the disease, which is that people's basic needs go unfulfilled in the current social system (capitalism). If people are educated, have food to eat, and have healthy social interactions with other people, they have no need for religion.

This is incredibly naïve, and evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of religion, and the myriad purposes it fulfills. There are innumerable examples that contradict this thesis. Religion, even religious fundamentalism cuts across class lines. Also; while religiosity and education, especially education in the hard sciences, generally, have an inverse relationship, they are not mutually exclusive. Consider the case of francis Collins, one of the greatest geneticists on earth, and an Evangelical Christian. What’s even more interesting, is that he wasn’t raised in a particularly religious family, in fact, he was an Atheist, and became an Evangelical in adulthood. Osama bin Laden is also an excellent example; he wasn’t raised in a particularly fundamentalist family, he went to some of the best schools in the region, he was the wealthy heir to his fathers’ construction empire, and many of his siblings became wealthy, educated professionals. Ayman al-Zawahiri, likewise, came from an upper-class, educated family, who were not unusually religious, he also is a PhD., and, by all accounts, a very competent surgeon. Many of the leadership caste of Aum Shinrikyo were wealthy, well- educated scientists, and doctors. Etc., etc.


Just as the state will wither away as mankind progresses towards communism, so will religion.

See above.


I don't think we need to be antagonistic towards people of faith,..

That depends on how you define; ‘antagonism.’ It also bears mentioning that a great many Theists, clearly, don’t subscribe to this ‘live, and let live’ policy. It’s a constant battle over gay rights, abortion, teaching evolution in public schools, etc., etc.

[Azraella]

That depends on how you define; ‘antagonism.’ It also bears mentioning that a great many Theists, clearly, don’t subscribe to this ‘live, and let live’ policy. It’s a constant battle over...

I feel like responding to this.



gay rights,This depends on what you mean and where you live. For most of the people here this probably means things more along the lines of group like Against Equality and Bash Back. Mainstream issues like marriage really depends on where you live. Also consider that there is religious support for marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_same-sex_marriage#Religious_support) and other issues have been made on religious grounds. I tend to fall in line with the more radical groups like Bash Back and have no interest in inclusion into hetero-normative culture.




abortion,Abortion is an incredibly complex issue. There are pro-life atheists (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/11/28/no-god-and-no-abortions.html) and pro-life feminists (http://www.feministsforlife.org/). There was even a pro-life anarchist mailing list several years ago that has died. This issue is very complex and involves much more than a woman's autonomy and I have no desire to explain my personal opinions on the matter. Yeah, most people who oppose it do so for religious reasons there are many who do so for secular reasons.





teaching evolution in public schoolsThis is purely a fundamentalist thing and to be frank most theists are not fundamentalists. It only appears that way because the fundies are so loud. You'd be really surprised on how many theists don't actually object to evolution.

[NGNM85]

I feel like responding to this.

That is your right.


This depends on what you mean and where you live. For most of the people here this probably means things more along the lines of group like Against Equality and Bash Back.

I’m not really familiar with these organizations. I don't see that this is relevent.


Mainstream issues like marriage really depends on where you live. Also consider that there is religious support for marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_same-sex_marriage#Religious_support) and other issues have been made on religious grounds.

The overwhelming majority of religious denominations operating in the United States, (Including a little organization called the Roman Catholic Church.) are adamantly opposed to gay marriage.


I tend to fall in line with the more radical groups like Bash Back and have no interest in inclusion into hetero-normative culture.

I’m not entirely sure what the fuck that means, but; whatever floats your boat. However; in something like 45, of the 50 states the civil rights of gay Americans are systematically denied. That’s something every Leftist, especially every radical Leftists, should be concerned with, on principle.


Abortion is an incredibly complex issue. There are pro-life atheists (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/11/28/no-god-and-no-abortions.html) and pro-life feminists (http://www.feministsforlife.org/). There was even a pro-life anarchist mailing list several years ago that has died.

No, no, no. This is nonsense. Two, or three exceptions don’t amount to shit. The Pro-Life movement is a religious movement, specifically, a Christian movement.


This issue is very complex and involves much more than a woman's autonomy…

Yes.


and I have no desire to explain my personal opinions on the matter.

It’s probably in your best interest not to. Trust me.


Yeah, most people who oppose it do so for religious reasons there are many who do so for secular reasons.

No, not 'many.' If you subtract the Christian Pro-Lifers from the Pro-Life movement, you might be able to fill a small discotheque. Let’s get real. Again; just because exceptions exist does not mean that they are in any way relevant, or representative. This is totally misleading.



This is purely a fundamentalist thing and to be frank most theists are not fundamentalists. It only appears that way because the fundies are so loud. You'd be really surprised on how many theists don't actually object to evolution.

Again; the facts simply are not on your side. Around 63%, or 64% of Americans reject evolution over some kind of literalist interpretation of Genesis. Yes, this is a fundamentalist view, but, unfortunately, they happen to constitute a majority.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

are religious people incapable of opposing capital and struggling for the working class? is it wise to alienate so many from the movement on such grounds?
i dont share in the opinion that science and religion are oposed to one another. science has neither the pretention nor the capability of explaining everything. the "unknown" will always exist, and some people like making up explanations and worshiping them. they always have. i think that most peoples' interpetations of religious doctrines dont stand in the way of class awareness or socialism. at any rate i dont think that it's reasonable to demand that people abandon their religious beliefs to be socialists. in fact it strikes me as an extremely counterproductive demand.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Can't expect anything else in the 1000000000th militant atheist thread

a pressing issue for the left surely. but i miss the days when we had countless anarchist v communist and trotskyist v stalinist threads. certainly more important issues. whatever happened to that?

[Zealot]

Militant Atheism isn't necessary. What is necessary is to be a Militant Marxist which, by extension, makes you a Militant Atheist and a Militant Materialist. Militant Atheism isolated by itself leads you into idealist territory and foolish positions such as those held by the now deceased anti-Marxist Christopher Hitchens.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

are religious people incapable of opposing capital and struggling for the working class? is it wise to alienate so many from the movement on such grounds?

Doesn't this implicitly assume that in a conflict between their class interests and their religion, religious workers will always come down on the side of religion?


i dont share in the opinion that science and religion are oposed to one another.

It's not up to you. It's a fundamental conflict based on how differently science and religion approach the truth.


science has neither the pretention nor the capability of explaining everything.

Something that no sensible person has claimed for science at this present time.


the "unknown" will always exist, and some people like making up explanations and worshiping them. they always have.

Just because something has been going on for a long time does not mean it is a good idea to let it continue.


i think that most peoples' interpetations of religious doctrines dont stand in the way of class awareness or socialism.

If people's interpretations of religious doctrine are so Protean, then does that not undermine the religious case for having a direct line to some kind of cosmic truth?


at any rate i dont think that it's reasonable to demand that people abandon their religious beliefs to be socialists. in fact it strikes me as an extremely counterproductive demand.

We can't demand anything of other people, as that is beyond our power and personally I wouldn't want that power. But since there is no indication that personal interpretations of religious doctrine can reach conclusions about the world that are as good as or better than conclusions reached using reason and science, why should we stand by and let people waste their time on nonsense just because an accident of birth and/or unsound reasoning put them in such a position?

I think people are capable of doing better than that. If that wasn't my position then I would even bother trying to convince others.

[Elysian]

Whenever I see this thread pop up in the Latest Posts feed I laugh a little.

You have a strange sense of humor.

[Red Rabbit]

You have a strange sense of humor.

He just enjoys your incessant trolling. I mean, who wouldn't?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Doesn't this implicitly assume that in a conflict between their class interests and their religion, religious workers will always come down on the side of religion?

i dont understand. if someone choses to be both religious and a socialist that means that theyve reconciled the two things and that to them theyre not in a state of conflict. they wont have to choose one or the other.


It's not up to you. It's a fundamental conflict based on how differently science and religion approach the truth.but as you have agreed, science is concerned with the knowable and religion, chiefly, with the unknowable. yes, they have quite divergent approaches, but that doesnt necessarily mean that theyre in conflict. for the religious, no amount of scientific discovery will ever be able to trump claims of the supernatural.


Just because something has been going on for a long time does not mean it is a good idea to let it continue.true. but what makes you think people will be willing to let go of religion within the foreseeable future?


If people's interpretations of religious doctrine are so Protean, then does that not undermine the religious case for having a direct line to some kind of cosmic truth?i think few religions have very clear doctrines concerning earthly socio-economic organization. the catholic church adapted itself to the modern capitalist world (was forced to). nothing indicates that they wouldnt be able to adapt to a socialist regime.


We can't demand anything of other people, as that is beyond our power and personally I wouldn't want that power. But since there is no indication that personal interpretations of religious doctrine can reach conclusions about the world that are as good as or better than conclusions reached using reason and science, why should we stand by and let people waste their time on nonsense just because an accident of birth and/or unsound reasoning put them in such a position?i find it curious that you claim to not be in the position to demand a given level of dedication from socialists, but you do claim the position of allowing and disallowing certain beliefs based on how productive you find them to be.

[hatzel]

Doesn't this implicitly assume that in a conflict between their class interests and their religion, religious workers will always come down on the side of religion?


i dont understand. if someone choses to be both religious and a socialist that means that theyve reconciled the two things and that to them neither thing are in a state of conflict. they will not have to choose one or the other.

I dunno. I personally find most 'socialists' and their shitty little ideologies so utterly repugnant that it would take a miracle for me to come down on 'their side' in any given situation. Only if the opposing side is proper shithouse bad. But even then it's a bit of a stretch, c'mon...I don't often side with out-and-out dickheads, you know, and most of those people running around with red flags fit well and truly into that category...

Luckily the socialist movement has very little to do with socialists, and claiming that when push comes to shove people will follow abstract ideals rather than material reality is...well...there's a word for people who believe that kinda stuff...

[Elysian]

Racism is the result of material conditions, as is religion. But leftists here do not justify racism on this account, only religious beliefs. Why this hypocrisy?

[Caj]

Racism is the result of material conditions, as is religion. But leftists here do not justify racism on this account, only religious beliefs. Why this hypocrisy?

Nobody is "justifying" anything, merely explaining. You're right that racism, like religion, is inevitably produced and propagated by the current economic basis of society. For this reason, racism will not cease entirely until a revolutionary transformation of the mode of production.

[Genghis]

There are many reasons as to why militant atheism is necessary, such as encouraging rational thought, but there are important political reasons too. Religious nuts often side with the ruling class, encourage wars, justify racism and homophobia. What's worse, followers of these religious leaders swallow all this propaganda and become a threat to others.

Consider Iraq war. All evangelical nuts like Stanley, Mac etc. were supporting it, comparing saddam to nebuchadnezzar, so gullible followers believe that history is repeating itself. So they support war, while in their minds they're supporting doctrine. Another example is homophobia. Followers, like blind sheep, do what their pastors say. If the pastors say homosexuality is evil, these blind idiots believe it without questioning.

Atheists, otoh, are not tied to any irrational ideology, so they can plan their actions according to material conditions and not worry about upsetting the church or pastor or god. They care about logic, so their thoughts and behavior are going to reflect some sanity.

So I feel militant atheism is a must. Give religious nuts an inch and they take a mile.

This is not true. Some religious people support the war and some don't. Some atheists support the way and some don't.

Not a just war. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4259062.stm)

Actually, I think Lenin and Stalin made a mistake in persecuting the Church. Christianity should have been co-opted for their cause.
The faith contains elements that can support Socialism. That was how the Liberation Theology in Latin America got started.

In Acts of the Apostles for example, Paul started a successful commune. The monasteries are a form of commune and they are successful.

Religious leader George Rapp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Rapp)started a collective farm and it was successful. When it was bought over by secular group headed by atheist Robert Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen), it flopped.

Why have monasteries and Rapp's commune succeeded when secular communes flopped? Its because faith allows earthly sacrifices to be compensated for by heavenly rewards.

Socialism is against human nature. Genes are selfish. We want to do things that allows us to pass on our genes to the next generation. Why would you work hard at a collective farm when you eat as well as the guy who goofs off?

Yet monks and nuns have no children and take care of other people who then pass on their genes. Think of Mother Theresa. This is unnatural ie against nature. But they do it because they believe their sacrifices will be rewarded in heaven.

[Revolution starts with U]

?If watching someone else get rewarded for not working is the demotivational factor its asserted to be... why does capitalism work so well?

Also... since when has Communism ever had anything to do with the existence of individual communes?

[Yefim Zverev]

Militant atheism is necessary, end of story.

[Revolution starts with U]

Also... selfish gene theory is not only reductionist and anthropomorphic but you're parroting something entirely different than Dawkins.

[Veovis]

Socialism is against human nature. Genes are selfish. We want to do things that allows us to pass on our genes to the next generation. Why would you work hard at a collective farm when you eat as well as the guy who goofs off?

Yet monks and nuns have no children and take care of other people who then pass on their genes. Think of Mother Theresa. This is unnatural ie against nature. But they do it because they believe their sacrifices will be rewarded in heaven.

So it should be impossible for atheists to do nice things for people with no expectation of payback or remuneration. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

Capitalism causes greed - not the other way around. People are products of the material conditions that they live in.

[Genghis]

So it should be impossible for atheists to do nice things for people with no expectation of payback or remuneration. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

Capitalism causes greed - not the other way around. People are products of the material conditions that they live in.

There are some nice atheist around and there are also some nasty religious people around. But what is the average behavior of both groups. The fact that religious communes are better at practicing communism/socialism than secular ones is telling.

Capitalism does not cause greed. Greed is simply part of human nature. We are all programmed to pass on our genes to the next generation. This means that we have to take care of ourselves and our kin to ensure the survival of our genes. This makes selfish behavior necessary and natural. Socialism must overcome our human nature. One way is to convince people that sacrificing our selfish interests will lead to heavenly reward.

That is why religious communes like the one started by George Rapp were successful while Robert Owen's failed. Monasteries are also a kind of commune where everything is shared. They have been around for thousands of years. That is why statistics show that left wing people (who tend to be secular or atheists) are more selfish than right wing people who tend to be more religious.

[roy]

There are some nice atheist around and there are also some nasty religious people around. But what is the average behavior of both groups. The fact that religious communes are better at practicing communism/socialism than secular ones is telling.

Capitalism does not cause greed. Greed is simply part of human nature. We are all programmed to pass on our genes to the next generation. This means that we have to take care of ourselves and our kin to ensure the survival of our genes. This makes selfish behavior necessary and natural. Socialism must overcome our human nature. One way is to convince people that sacrificing our selfish interests will lead to heavenly reward.

That is why religious communes like the one started by George Rapp were successful while Robert Owen's failed. Monasteries are also a kind of commune where everything is shared. They have been around for thousands of years. That is why statistics show that left wing people (who tend to be secular or atheists) are more selfish than right wing people who tend to be more religious.

There's no such thing as human nature. If there is, prove it. Humans can be conditioned to do anything, to live in any sort of society. We respond to different environments differently. I'm going to skip over that whole part about religious people being less selfish than atheists because there is obviously nothing that causes religious people (broad spectrum) to be more selfless than atheists (equally broad spectrum). I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue... The only path to socialism is through religion? Anyway, socialism isn't about selflessness. There would be no point if it was about giving everyone an equal pittance. Socialism is about organising the resources squandered under capitalism to such an effect that there exists an abundance. The only society that can satisfy greed is a socialist one.

[Genghis]

There's no such thing as human nature. If there is, prove it. Humans can be conditioned to do anything, to live in any sort of society. We respond to different environments differently. I'm going to skip over that whole part about religious people being less selfish than atheists because there is obviously nothing that causes religious people (broad spectrum) to be more selfless than atheists (equally broad spectrum). I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue... The only path to socialism is through religion? Anyway, socialism isn't about selflessness. There would be no point if it was about giving everyone an equal pittance. Socialism is about organising the resources squandered under capitalism to such an effect that there exists an abundance. The only society that can satisfy greed is a socialist one.

There is human nature and it puts limitations on what kind of society can work. Try telling people that once they reach a certain age, they have to kill themselves so that they do not burden society with rising health care costs. Our will to survive is part of human nature.

You should not skip over the part about religious people being more selfless on the average. It is key to making Socialism works. How to pursuade people to live for others and not for yourself. If you can do this, Socialism can work. The only people who succeeded up to a point are religious people. That's because they believe that earthly sacrifices are compensated for in heaven.

That is why religious people tend to be more selfless than secular people.

[Luís Henrique]

Nope.

I'm not big on philosophy but iirc dialectical materialism was bascially just the official philosophy of the USSR and wasn't accepted by non-Leninists. I know Marx didnt say shit about it in the Manifesto.

This is the Lichtensteinian understanding of dialectical materialism, but it is not revealed truth, nor something that is widely accepted outside the very limited circle of SWP militants disgruntled with SWP leadership but unable to articulate a proper criticism of the internal workings of the SWP.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

killing people over beliefs/politics is not fascism. fyi.

It isn't. It isn't a good or desirably thing either.

Luís Henrique

[Brosa Luxemburg]

There is human nature and it puts limitations on what kind of society can work. Try telling people that once they reach a certain age, they have to kill themselves so that they do not burden society with rising health care costs. Our will to survive is part of human nature.

You should not skip over the part about religious people being more selfless on the average. It is key to making Socialism works. How to pursuade people to live for others and not for yourself. If you can do this, Socialism can work. The only people who succeeded up to a point are religious people. That's because they believe that earthly sacrifices are compensated for in heaven.

That is why religious people tend to be more selfless than secular people.

Whether human nature is bad or good, the society we live in has a great influence on what type of people we will become.

Not all relgious people are more selfless than secular people. Televangilists.

[Luís Henrique]

Imperialism existed prior to the bourgeois era, although it manifested in a different form.

No it didn't. Political expansionism isn't the same as imperialism.

Luís Henrique

[Genghis]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue... The only path to socialism is through religion? Anyway, socialism isn't about selflessness. There would be no point if it was about giving everyone an equal pittance. Socialism is about organising the resources squandered under capitalism to such an effect that there exists an abundance. The only society that can satisfy greed is a socialist one.

Socialism is about selflessness. Imagine yourself in a collective farm. No matter how hard you work, you get the same reward as the guy who goofs off. That is why all collectivisation failed and people starved. See what I wrote about China's "great leap forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward)."

Now if everybody was willing to work for the good of others, collectivization will work. You work longer hours than me because I am weaker than you. But you happily accept the same paycheck as I do and live as well as I do. (or the same amount of food and consumer goods, if you succeed in abolishing money.) You are selfless and believe in Marx's dictum:

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need)

I know a strong guy like you have the ability to work 12 hours a day. But I am weak and can only work 2 hours a day. But I demand the same paycheck as you because my needs are the same as yours.

Oh wait. I think I have more needs than you. So can I have double your paycheck?

That's Socialism buddy. That is why resources are squandered under Socialism.

[Luís Henrique]

Socialism is about selflessness.

No, it is not.


I know a strong guy like you have the ability to work 12 hours a day. But I am weak and can only work 2 hours a day. But I demand the same paycheck as you because my needs are the same as yours.

No. We demand the end of the commodification of human labour power, ie, the end of all paychecks.

Luís Henrique

[Genghis]

Whether human nature is bad or good, the society we live in has a great influence on what type of people we will become.

Not all relgious people are more selfless than secular people. Televangilists.

True, but on the averqe religious people are less selfish. I recommend you read this book:

Who really cares by Arthur C Brooks (http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216)

Brooks compiled a ton of statistics showing that conservatives (ie the right wingers like me) give more to charity than liberals (ie leftists or people like you).

Excerpt:


The book uses data from many sources to prove that the one overwhelming predictor of generosity is religion. Political affiliation is almost irrelevent - the statistics for religious liberals and religious conservaties are identical. Religious people are statistically more likely to give than secularists (91% to 66%), and give more of their money (3.5 times more than secularists), are more likely to volunteer their time (67% to 44%), and volunteer more of their time (almost twice as much). The fact that the conservative population is more charitable than the liberal population is due to the fact that religious people tend to be politically conservative.


So for Socialism to succeed you need more people who are conservatives (like me) and less people who are leftists (like you).

[roy]

There is human nature and it puts limitations on what kind of society can work. Try telling people that once they reach a certain age, they have to kill themselves so that they do not burden society with rising health care costs. Our will to survive is part of human nature.

You should not skip over the part about religious people being more selfless on the average. It is key to making Socialism works. How to pursuade people to live for others and not for yourself. If you can do this, Socialism can work. The only people who succeeded up to a point are religious people. That's because they believe that earthly sacrifices are compensated for in heaven.

That is why religious people tend to be more selfless than secular people.

How misanthropic of you. Humans need an afterlife to motivate them toward anything positive in this life. What an indictment of humanity, sheesh. I wouldn't call that selfless, anyway. Hey, you know what, I'm sure it's entirely possible to create a society wherein people will sacrifice themselves at a certain age to compensate others. Especially if they are taught this from birth, it's entirely possible. Kamikaze pilots flew their planes into battleships, no? So much for the will to survive. The human race has come from classless, stateless, moneyless, collectivist nomadic clans to the domination of a small class at everyone else's expense with armies ready to perform unspeakable atrocities at the drop of a hat inbetween. Hey, that's still going on at an astounding rate, actually. We're very malleable creatures, and our 'nature' isn't the result of religion whatsoever.

[Genghis]

No, it is not.



No. We demand the end of the commodification of human labour power, ie, the end of all paychecks.

Luís Henrique

So you want to abolish money? Is that what Socialism is about? Go back to barter trade?

Is it OK then that I have more than you by barter trade?

[Genghis]

How misanthropic of you. Humans need an afterlife to motivate them toward anything positive in this life. What an indictment of humanity, sheesh. I wouldn't call that selfless, anyway. Hey, you know what, I'm sure it's entirely possible to create a society wherein people will sacrifice themselves at a certain age to compensate others. Especially if they are taught this from birth, it's entirely possible. Kamikaze pilots flew their planes into battleships, no? So much for the will to survive. The human race has come from classless, stateless, moneyless, collectivist nomadic clans to the domination of a small class at everyone else's expense with armies ready to perform unspeakable atrocities at the drop of a hat inbetween. Hey, that's still going on at an astounding rate, actually. We're very malleable creatures, and our 'nature' isn't the result of religion whatsoever.

Ah. But the Japanese Kamikaze pilots believe that they will become gods after their sacrifice. (http://www.pugetsound.edu/academics/departments-and-programs/undergraduate/religion/)This proves I am right.

Blurb from link:



Have you thought about why Muslims yearn to make the arduous pilgrimage to Mecca, why cows are sacred in India, or why kamikaze pilots believe they would become gods? If so, you may want to consider taking courses in Religion.


I think you need to sign up for the course.

[roy]

Socialism is about selflessness. Imagine yourself in a collective farm. No matter how hard you work, you get the same reward as the guy who goofs off. That is why all collectivisation failed and people starved. See what I wrote about China's "great leap forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward)."

Now if everybody was willing to work for the good of others, collectivization will work. You work longer hours than me because I am weaker than you. But you happily accept the same paycheck as I do and live as well as I do. (or the same amount of food and consumer goods, if you succeed in abolishing money.) You are selfless and believe in Marx's dictum:

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need)

I know a strong guy like you have the ability to work 12 hours a day. But I am weak and can only work 2 hours a day. But I demand the same paycheck as you because my needs are the same as yours.

Oh wait. I think I have more needs than you. So can I have double your paycheck?

That's Socialism buddy. That is why resources are squandered under Socialism.

You've got the wrong idea, 'buddy'. No one works for a wage under socialism. We won't be the wage slaves of the bourgeoisie under socialism anymore, no matter how bright the red of their flags is. Like I said, most of human existence has been spent in complete collectivism. What do you make of that? Collectivism still exists today (e.g. the Tsimihety people). Furthermore, allocating rations as an alternative to money isn't socialism, either.

In a socialist society that comes from a proletarian revolution, the resources squandered under the profit-motivated system monopolised by the bourgeoisie will be organised by the workers themselves. There is enough food, water and land in the world for everyone to live a fulfilled life, but most struggle because capitalism concentrates this wealth at the disposal of greedy sects. We want all the world's greed to be fulfilled to excess. This is not utopianism, but recognition of what is physically possible (even if it is hard to see through the grubby lens of our impoverished global capitalist economy).

[The Jay]

So you want to abolish money? Is that what Socialism is about? Go back to barter trade?

Is it OK then that I have more than you by barter trade?

Why don't you just read the Communist Manifesto to get most of this confusion out of the way? No he does not mean barter trade. Barter trade implies a market and that is not what's being espoused. Technology would make scarcity a thing of the past. This is no dream as we already produce more than we consume. With the advent of socialism these items will have no price, nothing will. The assertation of value through comparative need or want will be a thing of the past.

[Genghis]

Why don't you just read the Communist Manifesto to get most of this confusion out of the way? No he does not mean barter trade. Barter trade implies a market and that is not what's being espoused. Technology would make scarcity a thing of the past. This is no dream as we already produce more than we consume. With the advent of socialism these items will have no price, nothing will. The assertation of value through comparative need or want will be a thing of the past.

No price? Then can I have 10 rolls royces and 5 lear jets please?

While you are at it, give my wife a 8 carat diamond.

[Left Leanings]

There is human nature and it puts limitations on what kind of society can work. Try telling people that once they reach a certain age, they have to kill themselves so that they do not burden society with rising health care costs. Our will to survive is part of human nature.

You should not skip over the part about religious people being more selfless on the average. It is key to making Socialism works. How to pursuade people to live for others and not for yourself. If you can do this, Socialism can work. The only people who succeeded up to a point are religious people. That's because they believe that earthly sacrifices are compensated for in heaven.

That is why religious people tend to be more selfless than secular people.

That religious people are less selfish than secular people is not necessarily so. Consider the Christian doctrine of repentance and forgiveness. It can be seen as a carte blance to do what the fuck you like, but hey, as long as you are sorry, the deity will forgive you and grant you eternal life. Just keep on 'sinning' and then asking for forgiveness. Sounds like an ideal arrangement for the selfish to me.

You also need to take account of organized humanism and secularism. Here you have a movement that advocates selflessness, and it is not based on religious dictates at all.

In any case, I believe our morality is social in origin. Primitive humans learned that acting collectively was in their best interests, cos there is safety in numbers. Our ancestors huddled together to keep warm, and so they could fend off attacks more easily from wild animals. We are social creatures, and therefore we survive.

[Genghis]

You've got the wrong idea, 'buddy'. No one works for a wage under socialism. We won't be the wage slaves of the bourgeoisie under socialism anymore, no matter how bright the red of their flags is. Like I said, most of human existence has been spent in complete collectivism. What do you make of that? Collectivism still exists today (e.g. the Tsimihety people). Furthermore, allocating rations as an alternative to money isn't socialism, either.

In a socialist society that comes from a proletarian revolution, the resources squandered under the profit-motivated system monopolised by the bourgeoisie will be organised by the workers themselves. There is enough food, water and land in the world for everyone to live a fulfilled life, but most struggle because capitalism concentrates this wealth at the disposal of greedy sects. We want all the world's greed to be fulfilled to excess. This is not utopianism, but recognition of what is physically possible (even if it is hard to see through the grubby lens of our impoverished global capitalist economy).

What do I make of that? Collectivism worked for small groups of people - mostly kin and close friends. Go beyond 50 people and you will have problems making it work. Try it for 50 million people.

[The Jay]

No price? Then can I have 10 rolls royces and 5 lear jets please?

While you are at it, give my wife a 8 carat diamond.

Items that are of some rarity will be petitioned for democratically. If the need is found valid then it will be provided. If not, you won't get it. It's pretty simple.

[roy]

Ah. But the Japanese Kamikaze pilots believe that they will become gods after their sacrifice. (http://www.pugetsound.edu/academics/departments-and-programs/undergraduate/religion/)This proves I am right.

Blurb from link:



I think you need to sign up for the course.

And the point is religion can be manipulated for any purpose, like any ideological device. It will be twisted every which-way but it's not concrete. People don't just read scriptures and become fanatics. It takes strong external influence and social factors that are all informed by material conditions. The scriptures, the religion in itself, doesn't mean anything.

[roy]

What do I make of that? Collectivism worked for small groups of people - mostly kin and close friends. Go beyond 50 people and you will have problems making it work. Try it for 50 million people.

We're diametrically opposed. What can I say?

Try making capitalism work for 50 million people.

[Luís Henrique]

So you want to abolish money? Is that what Socialism is about? Go back to barter trade?

Is it OK then that I have more than you by barter trade?

No, I am evidently against going back to barter trade (if for no other reason, because barter trade will of course evolve again into a monetary system).

Socialism is about a rational division of production: to each one according to their needs. You need food, you have food; you need medicines, you have the medicines you need. You need a home, you get a home. You don't barter, you don't buy and sell, you don't "negotiate", you don't have to keep records on how much each person is producing (if for no other reason, because it is actually impossible; work nowadays is most completely collective), you don't use tokens to account for value, because value is no longer to exist.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Collectivism worked for small groups of people - mostly kin and close friends. Go beyond 50 people and you will have problems making it work. Try it for 50 million people.

It works perfectly - shocking as it is - within capitalist companies. The assembly line doesn't buy the materials from the stock; it demands them and is immediately provided, at no cost, with whatever it needs to produce.

Luís Henrique

[El Oso Rojo]

Wow, I never thought I'd see this much hating on atheism on a board full of communists!

So, In order to be a communist. One must have to be an atheist? Theology liberation.

[NeoTechni]

So it should be impossible for atheists to do nice things for people with no expectation of payback or remuneration. Gotcha. :rolleyes:


No, you have it backwards.
It means it's impossible for RELIGIOUS people to do nice things for people with no expectation of payback or remuneration, since they expect to be rewarded in the afterlife. Atheists, not believing in the afterlife, are the ONLY ones capable of acts of altruism.

Militant Atheism is needed, cause of how much the religious attack Atheists. We need the militant to stand up for us. We need more like Dawkins. And in this day and age, the people believing in sky fairies should be ashamed to fall for such ignorance

[Lowtech]

So I feel militant atheism is a must. Give religious nuts an inch and they take a mile.

i'm a socialist, so i might be overstepping my bounds here commenting on atheism LOL but

militant atheism?

free thinking should never be a doctrine, that is a contradiction. if you want to be militant, fine, be militant, but don't pretend you're being so out of a good reason, out of a benefit to the rest of humanity. military action should be reserved for self defense, not reinforcing a doctrine.

[Камо́ Зэд]

i'm a socialist, so i might be overstepping my bounds here commenting on atheism LOL but

militant atheism?

free thinking should never be a doctrine, that is a contradiction. if you want to be militant, fine, be militant, but don't pretend you're being so out of a good reason, out of a benefit to the rest of humanity. military action should be reserved for self defense, not reinforcing a doctrine.

A doctrine is just a set of principles; that there are principles of free thought is not a contradiction. Militant atheism may be a set of principles advocating self-defense against oppression based in superstition.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So, In order to be a communist. One must have to be an atheist? Theology liberation.

Don't forget to Render unto Caesar as Jesus says.

[Lowtech]

A doctrine is just a set of principles; that there are principles of free thought is not a contradiction. Militant atheism may be a set of principles advocating self-defense against oppression based in superstition.

I prefer your definition of militancy. However, principles should be guidence and nurturing of ideal perception of reality based on science, of which I fully support, however doctrine should never dictate thought. Laws should dictate behavoir and be enforced as humanely as possible, however thought should be nurtured, influenced positively but not controlled, in fact, forgive me if I am misconstruding the OP's position, if we use militancy to maintain an "atheist" stereotype, then in actuality, this runs counter to the scientific spirit of one seeking the truth for himself, as science is a forum of scientists, not soldiers following a doctrine.

[NGNM85]

I prefer your definition of militancy. However, principles should be guidence and nurturing of ideal perception of reality based on science, of which I fully support, however doctrine should never dictate thought. Laws should dictate behavoir and be enforced as humanely as possible, however thought should be nurtured, influenced positively but not controlled, in fact, forgive me if I am misconstruding the OP's position, if we use militancy to maintain an "atheist" stereotype, then in actuality, this runs counter to the scientific spirit of one seeking the truth for himself, as science is a forum of scientists, not soldiers following a doctrine.

Well, a 'militant atheist' is simply an atheist who has the audacity to openly challenge religious truth claims, in short; to be an atheist, in public.

[Juche]

Idk about militant atheism as it exists currently. But I do hate religion and think it should be abolished.

[Winkers Fons]

Am I a militant atheist if I find it difficult to have any sort of respect for adults with imaginary friends?

[Thirsty Crow]

Am I a militant atheist if I find it difficult to have any sort of respect for adults with imaginary friends?
Obnoxious prick, not really a militant atheist.
Though the two might overlap actually.

[Crux]

Am I a militant atheist if I find it difficult to have any sort of respect for adults with imaginary friends?
I knew my signature would come in handy.

[Philosophos]

Hmmm.... "There are many reasons as to why militant atheism is necessary, such as encouraging rational thought"....If you want to encourage rational thought change the school so kids from the youngest age can start to critically thinking. If you want to force rational thought you can do it with militant atheism...

[Fire]

Has the OP never heard of Chris Hitchins an outspoken militant atheist who was an enormous cheerleader for the Iraq war, torturing detainees, and imperialism?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, a 'militant atheist' is simply an atheist who has the audacity to openly challenge religious truth claims, in short; to be an atheist, in public.

No.

You can be an agnostic atheist and be open about it.

I'm no great expert on the philosophy of religion, but I don't quite believe all this 'militant atheism' stuff as I used to. I think that militant atheism - insofar as that which diverges from agnostic atheism - diverges from reason and logic towards the realm of belief, in that it utilises a total non-sequitor as the basis for it's position:

"We cannot see god, the bible is a pack of lies, therefore I KNOW there is no god."

Agnostic atheism - I believe even Richard Dawkins supports this position - works on the basis that, whilst we do not believe in God, we also do not believe in no god. We merely have cast our eye over the field, and we can surmise the following:

"We cannot see god, the bible is a pack of lies, therefore I don't believe in God. However, I also understand that, whilst there is hitherto no proof that god exists, there is also no proof - at this moment in time - that god does not exist, and so I will not proclaim 'there is no god' as a statement of fact. Rather, when I do proclaim 'there is no god', it pertains particularly and only to my belief system - 'I believe there is no god, but do not pretend that this is fact' - as opposed to any positively false statement masquerading as fact, i.e. 'I know there is no god'.

As such, whilst it is a useful tool against religion to merely assume the opposite belief - 'I believe there is no god' -, we must also (when talking in more serious, philosophical discussions that go beyond soundbites) understand that if we want to oppose religion because it is a belief system (which I believe is the main reason we should oppose it), then we must be of the agnostic atheist persuasion. Otherwise, we are merely assuming atheism as a belief, and implicitly opposing religion not because it is a belief system, but because it is a different belief system to that which is necessary as a basis to promulgate our worldview.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No.

You can be an agnostic atheist and be open about it.

I'm no great expert on the philosophy of religion, but I don't quite believe all this 'militant atheism' stuff as I used to. I think that militant atheism - insofar as that which diverges from agnostic atheism - diverges from reason and logic towards the realm of belief, in that it utilises a total non-sequitor as the basis for it's position:

"We cannot see god, the bible is a pack of lies, therefore I KNOW there is no god."

That's not militancy, that's taking a position. One can be either quiet or outspoken (i.e. militant) about that position. It's possible to be outspoken against religion because of its overall negative effects on society and still not be 100% sure of the non-existence of deities.


Agnostic atheism - I believe even Richard Dawkins supports this position - works on the basis that, whilst we do not believe in God, we also do not believe in no god. We merely have cast our eye over the field, and we can surmise the following:

"We cannot see god, the bible is a pack of lies, therefore I don't believe in God. However, I also understand that, whilst there is hitherto no proof that god exists, there is also no proof - at this moment in time - that god does not exist, and so I will not proclaim 'there is no god' as a statement of fact. Rather, when I do proclaim 'there is no god', it pertains particularly and only to my belief system - 'I believe there is no god, but do not pretend that this is fact' - as opposed to any positively false statement masquerading as fact, i.e. 'I know there is no god'.

It's rather difficult to prove a negative, especially when the absence of evidence can be explained away with supernatural powers. So the burden of evidence rests on those making the claim that deities exist. If I say "There is no God", by far the easiest way of proving me wrong would be to present evidence. Yet religionists and their sympathisers don't do this, instead shifting the burden of evidence while acting as if the question had already been answered in their favour.

When one takes a scientific approach, the truth becomes provisional, subject to the evidence. The state of the evidence for deities - absolutely nothing so far - makes it reasonable to conclude, as working assumption for now at least, that deities do not exist.


As such, whilst it is a useful tool against religion to merely assume the opposite belief - 'I believe there is no god' -, we must also (when talking in more serious, philosophical discussions that go beyond soundbites) understand that if we want to oppose religion because it is a belief system (which I believe is the main reason we should oppose it), then we must be of the agnostic atheist persuasion. Otherwise, we are merely assuming atheism as a belief, and implicitly opposing religion not because it is a belief system, but because it is a different belief system to that which is necessary as a basis to promulgate our worldview.

There's nothing wrong with beliefs based on evidence or lack-of-evidence.

[NGNM85]

No.

You can be an agnostic atheist and be open about it.

I'm no great expert on the philosophy of religion, but I don't quite believe all this 'militant atheism' stuff as I used to. I think that militant atheism - insofar as that which diverges from agnostic atheism - diverges from reason and logic towards the realm of belief, in that it utilises a total non-sequitor as the basis for it's position:

"We cannot see god, the bible is a pack of lies, therefore I KNOW there is no god."

Agnostic atheism - I believe even Richard Dawkins supports this position - works on the basis that, whilst we do not believe in God, we also do not believe in no god. We merely have cast our eye over the field, and we can surmise the following:

"We cannot see god, the bible is a pack of lies, therefore I don't believe in God. However, I also understand that, whilst there is hitherto no proof that god exists, there is also no proof - at this moment in time - that god does not exist, and so I will not proclaim 'there is no god' as a statement of fact. Rather, when I do proclaim 'there is no god', it pertains particularly and only to my belief system - 'I believe there is no god, but do not pretend that this is fact' - as opposed to any positively false statement masquerading as fact, i.e. 'I know there is no god'.

As such, whilst it is a useful tool against religion to merely assume the opposite belief - 'I believe there is no god' -, we must also (when talking in more serious, philosophical discussions that go beyond soundbites) understand that if we want to oppose religion because it is a belief system (which I believe is the main reason we should oppose it), then we must be of the agnostic atheist persuasion. Otherwise, we are merely assuming atheism as a belief, and implicitly opposing religion not because it is a belief system, but because it is a different belief system to that which is necessary as a basis to promulgate our worldview.

You're arbitrarily redefining; 'militant atheism.' Again; the characerization as a; 'militant' atheist, as it is presently used in the public discourse, basically amounts to being an atheist, in public. By your definition; virtually no-one is a; 'militant atheist.' No-one in the canon takes this position; not Dawkins, not Harris, not Dennett, not Hitchens, not Russell, etc., etc.

Furthermore; there's absolutely nothing wrong with having beliefs. However; those beliefs should be in accordance with our understanding of reality, they should complement, and flow from established facts, and they should be subject to a burden of proof to verify this.