Militant Atheism

[Thanatos]

There has been a lot of criticism regarding militant atheists of the Dawkins variety, saying such attitude only offends people etc.

I have the following thoughts. Aren't people like Dawkins helping our cause, at least indirectly? Let's face it. While it may be possible for an atheist to be a capitalist (and a believer to be a commie), what are the odds of that happening? I know people often point to liberation theology etc., but like I said ....... most of the time religion pushes people away from communism. Religious explanations of the world - rather than the historical materialist explanations - reduce class consciousness, and in worst cases may even lead people to believe that communism is evil, and capitalism is morally right.

I can't explain it fully, but either you get it or you don't. I am not saying all religions are the same. There are varieties. But they are the same in that they somehow block the development of class consciousness by readily providing supernatural explanations for everything. So I am basically talking about the damage religion does on this level only - not talking about religious wars, crusades, etc. That's an entirely different matter. For now I am focusing on class consciousness alone.

In this context, aren't people are Dawkins doing us a favor? By making people question and eventually discard religious thinking ------- that vacuum has to filled by rational thinking. And rational thinking - regarding society, people, relationships, political system ec. - may inevitably lead them toward communism or at least toward progressive politics.

In this sense, isn't the fight against religion a good fight (and not unnecessary, as some comrades seem to believe)? Kind of like fighting against racism - it may lead to progressive thinking, and such thinking may eventually lead one to consider communism.

[liberlict]

Maybe they are helping your cause. I can't comment on that. But I do think they are a bunch of assholes. I view them like the people who go around telling young children that santa-clause isn't real. Maybe they should go around and kick kids' sand-castles over on the beach while they are at it.

The sad thing about the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" is they are all brilliant in their trained fields --Dawkins and Daniel Dennett especially. Hitchens is brilliant too, although a little scattered and confused. I don't know much about Harris, but he's obviously gifted at what he does.


What's happened with these guys is they felt under-recognised for their work and stooped to trolling in later life for mainstream attention. All this militant atheism is way beneath them.

It's weird that people view this anti-theism as something new, when it's been about for centuries, even millenniums: David Hume, Bertrand Russell, A. J. Ayer, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Lucretius .. and of course Marx and the communist cannon.

Check out this for the very definition of a circle-jerk:

CqVNz7kdvd8

And back in 1959

ravyVd0JeSc

[Loony Le Fist]

There has been a lot of criticism regarding militant atheists of the Dawkins variety, saying such attitude only offends people etc.

I have the following thoughts. Aren't people like Dawkins helping our cause, at least indirectly?

I don't know if I would classify Dawkins as a militant atheist. I see militant atheists as much more actively anti-religious to the point of causing physical harm to practitioners or clergy. Mental harm of having their views shown for the absolute backwards hogwash that they are, doesn't count. ;)

I don't know if Dawkins is helping or hurting the cause of the left. Perhaps it could be (as you claim later) that choosing to subscribe to a more rational and materialistic explanation of origins would lead to greater class consciousness. But in some ways I believe that in the US, sadly, there might be a certain degree of acceptance of current conditions. Said another way, people might indeed already be aware of class consciousness, but merely accept it fatalistically.


While it may be possible for an atheist to be a capitalist (and a believer to be a commie), what are the odds of that happening? I know people often point to liberation theology etc., but like I said ....... most of the time religion pushes people away from communism. Religious explanations of the world - rather than the historical materialist explanations - reduce class consciousness, and in worst cases may even lead people to believe that communism is evil, and capitalism is morally right.


I think if they chose to pick the right verses they could. For example:



Mark 10:17-25
17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


To me that seems to strongly imply "from each according to his ability to each according to need". But I suppose there can be some argument there. And as you have pointed out, this tends to be a liberation theology phenomenon. You point out something interesting that I often wonder about: how do many mainstream Christians in the US support capitalism so fervently, given this description of feudalistic society and it's perils; their savior Jesus pointing out the flaws of the exploitative aspects of said society.

Of course, I understand that Jesus is indeed supportive of slavery in passages, at one point claiming that (I'm paraphrasing) slaves should be obedient to their masters. And of course it is a highly authoritarian text. So those aspects would be incompatible with (at least my view) leftist ideology.



But they are the same in that they somehow block the development of class consciousness by readily providing supernatural explanations for everything. So I am basically talking about the damage religion does on this level only - not talking about religious wars, crusades, etc. That's an entirely different matter. For now I am focusing on class consciousness alone...

I would say that religion blocks the development of critical thinking, a corollary of which would be questioning authority. Society doesn't change unless authorities are forced to justify themselves and those that cannot be justified dismantled.



...isn't the fight against religion a good fight (and not unnecessary, as some comrades seem to believe)?

I think it's important to try to find common ground with religious allies. Personally I would prioritize the fight for egalitarianism and morality over the fight against irrational beliefs. I would gladly ally myself with a liberation theologist to fight for the cause, despite my disagreement with theism.

[Garbageday]

Aren't militants supposed to have guns


Dawkins doesn't have a gun

[Imperius]

There has been a lot of criticism regarding militant atheists of the Dawkins variety, saying such attitude only offends people etc.

I have the following thoughts. Aren't people like Dawkins helping our cause, at least indirectly? Let's face it. While it may be possible for an atheist to be a capitalist (and a believer to be a commie), what are the odds of that happening? I know people often point to liberation theology etc., but like I said ....... most of the time religion pushes people away from communism. Religious explanations of the world - rather than the historical materialist explanations - reduce class consciousness, and in worst cases may even lead people to believe that communism is evil, and capitalism is morally right.

I can't explain it fully, but either you get it or you don't. I am not saying all religions are the same. There are varieties. But they are the same in that they somehow block the development of class consciousness by readily providing supernatural explanations for everything. So I am basically talking about the damage religion does on this level only - not talking about religious wars, crusades, etc. That's an entirely different matter. For now I am focusing on class consciousness alone.

In this context, aren't people are Dawkins doing us a favor? By making people question and eventually discard religious thinking ------- that vacuum has to filled by rational thinking. And rational thinking - regarding society, people, relationships, political system ec. - may inevitably lead them toward communism or at least toward progressive politics.

In this sense, isn't the fight against religion a good fight (and not unnecessary, as some comrades seem to believe)? Kind of like fighting against racism - it may lead to progressive thinking, and such thinking may eventually lead one to consider communism.

The problem here is that once you become adept at deconstructing religious thinking, you begin to see the religious nature of communism itself. Your own language reveals a kind of religious fanaticism, in the way you speak of "class consciousness" and "progressive thinking" as if they are some inevitable millennial destiny for humanity, as ordained by the prophet Marx and his disciples.

Most smart atheists I know understand this, and steer clear of communism for that reason. What were Bolshevik, Stalinist and Maoist excesses if not religious crusades in the cause of communism? What is communism if not the most extreme form of the Religion of Progress? So I don't really understand why an anti-religious person would be interested in communist ideology; how do you get from the laws of physics and Darwinian evolution to communism, without invoking some arbitrary (and largely Judeo-Christian-derived) principles that have no more basis in nature than the Resurrection or the notion that "all men are created equal"?

[Loony Le Fist]

The problem here is that once you become adept at deconstructing religious thinking, you begin to see the religious nature of communism itself. Your own language reveals a kind of religious fanaticism, in the way you speak of "class consciousness" and "progressive thinking" as if they are some inevitable millennial destiny for humanity, as ordained by the prophet Marx and his disciples.


Do you even know what class consciousness is? Regardless, Marx was just a thinker with an opinion about things. It doesn't do you any favors to make sweeping generalizations like this. LOL @ prophet Marx.



Most smart atheists I know understand this, and steer clear of communism for that reason. What were Bolshevik, Stalinist and Maoist excesses if not religious crusades in the cause of communism? What is communism if not the most extreme form of the Religion of Progress?


Thanks for the insult to our intelligence there, along with a sweeping generalization. I suppose I'm just a stupid atheist. Obviously free-market evangelists (and Austrian economists) don't exist. ::sarcasm:: Apparently those promoting that view don't suffer from religious delusions in your view.


So I don't really understand why an anti-religious person would be interested in communist ideology; how do you get from the laws of physics and Darwinian evolution to communism, without invoking some arbitrary (and largely Judeo-Christian-derived) principles that have no more basis in nature than the Resurrection or the notion that "all men are created equal"?

It is true that an interpretation of Darwinian evolution would lead one to conclude that survival of the most fittest, interpreted as most cunning, brutal and amoral, would perhaps lead naturally to the idea of capitalism. However the term fittest in this sense means most well adapted. After all, how would explain parents caring for their young using that model? Let's turn to nature--the most evolved organisms exist in symbiosis (specifically mutualism) with each other.

Need evidence? Lets look at the specific case of the Syphilis bacterium. If you back a few hundred years, Syphilis used to kill it's host. The Syphilis bacteria no longer very often kills the humans it infects. A virus or bacteria that kills it's host is not very good. Another example, Herpes doesn't kill it's host, it lives symbiotically with it.

The most evolved species involved in co-evolution do not actually compete, but co-exist. This naturally leads to the idea that the highest state of evolution would be one where members of a society co-exist mutually, rather than in direct competition with each other.

So yes, you can derive from Darwinian evolution that a sort of a non-competitive sharing society of some kind is the most evolved.

[Imperius]

It may be a generalization, but the parallels between Marxism and Protestantism are close enough that I would think atheists would be suspicious. As the always insightful Archdruid John Michael Greer put it:

The case of Communism is at least as susceptible to such an analysis, and in some ways even more revealing. Most of the ideas that became central to the civil religion of Communism were the work of Friedrich Engels, Marx’s friend and patron, who took over the task of completing the second and third volumes of Das Kapital on Marx’s death. It’s from Engels that we get the grand historical myth of the Communist movement, and it’s been pointed out many times already that every part of that myth has a precise equivalent in the Lutheran faith in which Engels was raised. Primitive communism is Eden; the invention of private property is the Fall; the stages of society thereafter are the different dispensations of sacred history; Marx is Jesus, the First International his apostles and disciples, the international Communist movement the Church, proletarian revolution the Second Coming, socialism the Millennium, and communism the New Jerusalem which descends from heaven in the last two chapters of the Book of Revelations.

The devout Communist, in turn, participates in that sweeping vision of past, present and future in exactly the same way that the devout Christian participates in the sacred history of Christianity. To be a Communist of the old school is not simply to accept a certain set of economic theories or predictions about the future development of industrial society; it’s to enlist on the winning side in the struggle that will bring about the fulfillment of human history, and to belong to a secular church with its own saints, martyrs, holy days, and passionate theological disputes. It was thus well placed to appeal to European working classes which, during the heyday of Communism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, were rarely more than a generation removed from the richly structured religious life of rural Europe.As for your claim that symbiotic microorganisms are the "most evolved" species, most evolved according to what measure? If you define things such that competition and predation are "less evolved," then your claim is true by definition. But clearly the most intelligent species are not symbiotic microorganisms living in a steady-state with their environment. Why would you look to the most primitive organisms for your models for humanity? I suspect it comes from a cultural Judeo-Christian bias against the strong ruling the weak, against inequality, hierarchy and conflict. But these things are NECESSARY for progress; a world of symbiotic, peaceful equals is a world where nothing changes. A world where all humans live in enforced equality is a return to a communal, tribal existence, where no one has any incentive to innovate and all property is shared. I doubt humanity would have gotten out the stone age if this way of life had prevailed. As Greer says, communism is an attempt to return to our ancestral, tribal Eden; it's the opposite of civilization, and can't possibly work outside of a stone age milieu. It's a religious fantasy.

[Vanguard1917]

Dawkins is not a militant atheist in my book. Socialist materialists are militant atheists - they see religion as an understandable product of certain social conditions, which they want to see overthrown. Dawkins, on the other hand, is a bland liberal who has a philistine's understanding of religion, seeing it essentially as the product of individual stupidity.

For an example of militant atheism, here's a brilliant little article: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

[Loony Le Fist]

As for your claim that symbiotic microorganisms are the "most evolved" species, most evolved according to what measure? If you define things such that competition and predation are "less evolved," then your claim is true by definition.


I suppose I should clarify what I mean. Relationships that start out parasitic often end up symbiotic. It is just a natural progression that seems to occur. More evolved is just my way of putting it.


But clearly the most intelligent species are not symbiotic microorganisms living in a steady-state with their environment. Why would you look to the most primitive organisms for your models for humanity? I suspect it comes from a cultural Judeo-Christian bias against the strong ruling the weak, against inequality, hierarchy and conflict.


Oh no? And how would you classify them as "primitive"? After all, they have been evolving for the same amount of time that we have. I gave another example that is present in higher organisms--the evolution of caring for young. But besides those, there are many examples in nature of more complex organisms co-existing in symbiosis. Evolutionary pressure is not only driven by competition, but also by a need to co-exist. Things can not only evolve to be better at competing, but they can also evolve to be better at mutually benefitting one another. Perhaps you need to read a biology text and inform yourself.


But these things are NECESSARY for progress; a world of symbiotic, peaceful equals is a world where nothing changes. A world where all humans live in enforced equality is a return to a communal, tribal existence, where no one has any incentive to innovate and all property is shared. I doubt humanity would have gotten out the stone age if this way of life had prevailed. As Greer says, communism is an attempt to return to our ancestral, tribal Eden; it's the opposite of civilization, and can't possibly work outside of a stone age milieu. It's a religious fantasy.

Change is necessary for progress. And change can be motivated by many things other than the need to adversarially compete. As I stated before, many organisms can evolve to work better together to benefit one another, not to be adversarial. I hope you aren't claiming that the only evolutionary pressure that exists is predatory competitive pressure. You would be quite wrong.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

As Greer says...
Well, if a self-styled Druid says so... :lol:

[Fourth Internationalist]

Dawkins is not a militant atheist in my book. Socialist materialists are militant atheists - they see religion as an understandable product of certain social conditions, which they want to see overthrown. Dawkins, on the other hand, is a bland liberal who has a philistine's understanding of religion, seeing it essentially as the product of individual stupidity.

For an example of militant atheism, here's a brilliant little article: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

While I certainly agree with that piece by Lenin and probably your own thoughts as well, I think that he would consider what he argues to be the opposite of militant atheism (a distinct political war on religion). In arguing against the militant atheist socialists, he says that they should tie the fight against religion into class struggle by fighting the social conditions that creates religion. That is the only way to get rid of religion because religion and its institutions are, in Lenin's own words from that piece, the "instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class."

[WelcomeToTheParty]

how do you get from the laws of physics and Darwinian evolution to communism, without invoking some arbitrary (and largely Judeo-Christian-derived) principles that have no more basis in nature than the Resurrection or the notion that "all men are created equal"?

Let's start with the idea that people will act in what they believe is their interest. Then let's note the fact that it is in the interest of workers to overthrow capital and so end the extraction of surplus value from them. Finally let's accept that it is possible to make enough workers conscious of this fact to create a movement strong enough to overthrow capital and that during that struggle workers come to see capitalists and not different workers as their enemies.

There's your basis for communism.


But these things are NECESSARY for progress; a world of symbiotic, peaceful equals is a world where nothing changes. A world where all humans live in enforced equality is a return to a communal, tribal existence, where no one has any incentive to innovate and all property is shared.

I think a better way to put it would be a world where humans don't live in enforced inequality and I take issue with your suggestion that there is no incentive to innovate in such a situation. Innovation for profit would be out, but there are other motives like the esteem of your colleagues, helping others or just interest that would still drive scientists. Innovation under socialism could become even more effective as it is directed by society as a whole towards areas that technology is lacking whether that be food production, space exploration or information technology. Scientists are often not well paid or rewarded in our society and research goes on, why would they suddenly loose interest in their life's work under socialism?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Dawkins is an idiot and the OP is full of holes. Based upon this, I would say no.

Militant atheism = hyper nerdiness

[Thirsty Crow]

The problem here is that once you become adept at deconstructing religious thinking, you begin to see the religious nature of communism itself. In order that this statement may be even assessed as true or false, you'd first have to butcher the everyday notion of religion beyond recognition. It's very well known what constitutes religious belief. Communism doesn't fall under that category, I'm afraid.


Your own language reveals a kind of religious fanaticism, in the way you speak of "class consciousness" and "progressive thinking" as if they are some inevitable millennial destiny for humanity, as ordained by the prophet Marx and his disciples.A kind of fanaticism, this might very well be true. Though, the connection with religion can be only analogical. Anyway, you're flat out wrong with regard to the post you quoted. I think you don't actually know what can reasonably be called fanaticism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

In order that this statement may be even assessed as true or false, you'd first have to butcher the everyday notion of religion beyond recognition. It's very well known what constitutes religious belief. Communism doesn't fall under that category, I'm afraid.

Of course it doesn't. :rolleyes: Why not?


A kind of fanaticism, this might very well be true. Though, the connection with religion can be only analogical. Anyway, you're flat out wrong with regard to the post you quoted. I think you don't actually know what can reasonably be called fanaticism.

Lol, wut?

[Thirsty Crow]

What why not? Why doesn't communism constitute a religious belief? Are you seriously arguing that either a) communism represents belief in a deity and/or a transcendence of some kind or b) our notion of religious belief is not based on this?

Get rid of deities and transcendence and what you're left with?


Lol, wut? If you have problems with following an argument through, just ask and I'll explain further.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What why not?

Pretty sure thats what I asked, yes.


Why doesn't communism constitute a religious belief?

That's not really what I'm asking.


Are you seriously arguing that either a) communism represents belief in a deity and/or a transcendence of some kind

In Deity? No, of course not, that is scarecrow. Transcendence? Arguable, plausible, sure. I am arguing that Communism, as represented by Marxists (of whatever stripe), functions ideologically the same as religious belief and or stereotyped religious belief. This isn't that wild of an idea tbh.


If you have problems with following an argument through, just ask and I'll explain further.

Yeah, lets be condescending for no reason, that's fun.

[Imperius]

Well, if a self-styled Druid says so... :lol:

You might try reading him before dismissing him based on his title -- google "Archdruid Report". Greer is quite brilliant, erudite and challenging, and I'll wager he knows more about Marxism than most of the posters here. He also has a deep knowledge of human history, spirituality, mythology and psychology that I suggest more revolutionary leftists acquaint themselves with if they want to better understand why certain ideologies tend to fail the reality test, others have a lasting appeal, and history stubbornly refuses to conform to the grandiose schemes of leftist and atheist intellectuals.

[Thirsty Crow]

I am arguing that Communism, as represented by Marxists (of whatever stripe), functions ideologically the same as religious belief and or stereotyped religious belief. This isn't that wild of an idea tbh.Do you really believe that this, which is true (and this I hinted at by mentioning that the connection between the two might only be called analogical), is what the user who stated that


The problem here is that once you become adept at deconstructing religious thinking, you begin to see the religious nature of communism itself. ...had in mind? (emphasis added) Do you think that your view is the same as that one? I don't think so.

Now, from this I can't be sure whether you think that only Marxism invariably represents this ideological, quasi-religious function. Do you think this holds for communism as such?


Yeah, lets be condescending for no reason, that's fun. Well, sorry, but "lol wut"s tend to get on my nerves. You could also say they invite condescension on their own.

[liberlict]

The problem here is that once you become adept at deconstructing religious thinking, you begin to see the religious nature of communism itself. Your own language reveals a kind of religious fanaticism, in the way you speak of "class consciousness" and "progressive thinking" as if they are some inevitable millennial destiny for humanity, as ordained by the prophet Marx and his disciples.

Most smart atheists I know understand this, and steer clear of communism for that reason. What were Bolshevik, Stalinist and Maoist excesses if not religious crusades in the cause of communism? What is communism if not the most extreme form of the Religion of Progress? So I don't really understand why an anti-religious person would be interested in communist ideology; how do you get from the laws of physics and Darwinian evolution to communism, without invoking some arbitrary (and largely Judeo-Christian-derived) principles that have no more basis in nature than the Resurrection or the notion that "all men are created equal"?

While it's true that most communists are self-indoctrinated automatons, I think it's unfair to single out communists. Most people who are engaged in political discourse have no critical thinking abilities whatsoever.

[Diirez]

"Militant" Atheism is extremely important for the Atheist movement. "Militant" Atheists tend to debate, question, satire and critique religious beliefs, often on a public level. You essentially have two (basic) types of Atheists, those who want to keep to themselves and then "militant" atheists who debate and question religion on a public level. I think the "militant" atheists the more extremely important ones. The reason I think this is because they're opening Atheism to the public instead of it being this reserved philosophy. It's also allowing people to hear the questions and critiques that atheists have against religion and allows the religious who maybe are struggling in their faith to really add the right questions as they struggle and try to figure out what they believe.

I know this for a fact, because I was super religious. I grew up, and still am in, an extremely conservative Catholic enviorment I was anti-gay, anti-communist, anti-atheist...etc. However, I knew a "militant" atheist and he encouraged me and pushed me to do my own research. When I did that, I found and listened to Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Dawkins and after awhile of that, I ended up becoming Atheist.

[Rottenfruit]

i just call it douchebag atheism , much more fitting i think

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I know this for a fact, because I was super religious. I grew up, and still am in, an extremely conservative Catholic enviorment I was anti-gay, anti-communist, anti-atheist...etc. However, I knew a "militant" atheist and he encouraged me and pushed me to do my own research. When I did that, I found and listened to Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Dawkins and after awhile of that, I ended up becoming Atheist.

Was there a baptismal rite involved? What's your Atheist name? Did you receive a copy of God Delusion?

[argeiphontes]

But they are the same in that they somehow block the development of class consciousness by readily providing supernatural explanations for everything.

If anything, they block the development of "class consciousness" because if you already have a religion, you don't need another one :laugh:

Why else would Marxists believe that people are going to exit the churches and hit the barricades? Who's going to believe in Marxist messianic religion, with it's revolutionary Armageddon, it's class consciousness version of grace or holy spirit, and its utopian heaven on earth, when one has an afterlife already?

[argeiphontes]

"Militant" Atheism is extremely important for the Atheist movement. "Militant" Atheists tend to debate, question, satire and critique religious beliefs, often on a public level.

First of all, what's the point of this, other than douchebaggery? Second of all, their promissory materialism will never defeat idealistic conceptions of the universe.

[Vanguard1917]

While I certainly agree with that piece by Lenin and probably your own thoughts as well, I think that he would consider what he argues to be the opposite of militant atheism (a distinct political war on religion). In arguing against the militant atheist socialists, he says that they should tie the fight against religion into class struggle by fighting the social conditions that creates religion. That is the only way to get rid of religion because religion and its institutions are, in Lenin's own words from that piece, the "instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class."

I'd argue it's a militant position because it calls for a kind of struggle (a class struggle) that can actually fight and defeat religion, however indirectly.

Unlike liberal atheists, who have no feasible strategy against religion and essentially celebrate the existing order, if not the religious 'idiots' which that order helps engender. Such atheists aren't 'militant' anything, therefore.

[Diirez]

Was there a baptismal rite involved? What's your Atheist name? Did you receive a copy of God Delusion?

Yes there wa-Oh wait...Atheism is just the philosophy of not believing in a god.


First of all, what's the point of this, other than douchebaggery? Second of all, their promissory materialism will never defeat idealistic conceptions of the universe.

The whole point of "militant" atheists are to encourage free thought and skepticism. That's why they debate the religious on issues. It's designed to have both the atheists and the religious question what they believe every time. They're shattered the society's taboo on discussing religion.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'd argue it's a militant position because it calls for a kind of struggle (a class struggle) that can actually fight and defeat religion, however indirectly.

Unlike liberal atheists, who have no feasible strategy against religion and essentially celebrate the existing order, if not the religious 'idiots' which that order helps engender. Such atheists aren't 'militant' anything, therefore.

True. I understand your point, but I think that militant atheism has already been defined as those bourgeois atheists who are waging a direct war on religion without regard to class struggle. I think Marxists shouldn't use the term because the word 'Marxism' better and more fully explains our views on religion than 'militant atheism' can.

'Militant atheism' is often used to describe the strategies of the Stalinist USSR and Maoist China in their forceful and highly oppressive attacks against religion and religious communities, which were undoubtedly done in an anti-Marxist anti-Bolshevik fashion. That's another reason I don't think the term is a wise choice because Marxists really aren't militant atheists in the sense that we are combative or aggressive (forceful) about atheism and anti-religion (which is what 'militant' means). Though, that's mostly just a semantical preference on my part.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes there wa-Oh wait...Atheism is just the philosophy of not believing in a god.

Atheism is not a philosophy. It's a lack of belief, a specific kind of belief.

[Vanguard1917]

True. I understand your point, but I think that militant atheism has already been defined as those bourgeois atheists who are waging a direct war on religion without regard to class struggle. I think Marxists shouldn't use the term because the word 'Marxism' better and more fully explains our views on religion than 'militant atheism' can.

'Militant atheism' is often used to describe the strategies of the Stalinist USSR and Maoist China in their forceful and highly oppressive attacks against religion and religious communities, which were undoubtedly done in an anti-Marxist anti-Bolshevik fashion. That's another reason I don't think the term is a wise choice because Marxists really aren't militant atheists in the sense that we are combative or aggressive (forceful) about atheism and anti-religion (which is what 'militant' means). Though, that's mostly just a semantical preference on my part.

I agree - because of its associations it would definitely be wrong to simply define ourselves as 'militant atheists' and leave it at that. The term should obviously have no place in socialist slogans, for example. Our 'militant atheism' needs to be qualified and fully clarified to categorically reject our association with the kinds of things you describe.

[argeiphontes]

The whole point of "militant" atheists are to encourage free thought and skepticism.

Is it? Because it's a miserable failure.


]The term should obviously have no place in socialist slogans, for example.

It's alright. The working class, who are overwhelmingly religious, will see through your ruse. They already understand that Marxism is an enemy of religion.

[Vanguard1917]

It's alright. The working class, who are overwhelmingly religious, will see through your ruse. They already understand that Marxism is an enemy of religion.

Marxism is not an enemy of religion in the way you probably believe it is.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There has been a lot of criticism regarding militant atheists of the Dawkins variety, saying such attitude only offends people etc.i'm not really bothered by all cases of people being offensive. But my main problem with this specific atheist trend ("militant aetheism") is that it treats religion abstractly, idealistically, as a grouping of "bad ideas". This leads to sloppy elitism in most cases ("why are stupid people believing all these bad ideas when I proved to them that...."), misunderstands why religion exists in (non theocratic) societies, and more specifically and in a contemporary context often parrots and backs up islamophobic arguments and stereotypes.


I have the following thoughts. Aren't people like Dawkins helping our cause, at least indirectly? Let's face it. While it may be possible for an atheist to be a capitalist (and a believer to be a commie), what are the odds of that happening?
I don't think so. Class struggle along with revolutionary groupings helps lay the basis for wider radicalism; in the context of defeat and low struggle I think most people become revolutionaries for any number of subjective reasons (they met other radicals, they read Marx and it chimed with their experience, they think Che shirts or punk rock anarchy are cool but then delve deeper, etc).


I know people often point to liberation theology etc., but like I said ....... most of the time religion pushes people away from communism. Religious explanations of the world - rather than the historical materialist explanations - reduce class consciousness, and in worst cases may even lead people to believe that communism is evil, and capitalism is morally right.i don't know that this holds up. Maybe subjectively for some individuals, but plenty of religious people have fought and died on the working class side of the barricades. Again, I think this argument suggests that radicalization in society is a process of slowly winning ideological arguments but that's not how I see mass revolutionary sentiment developing.


I can't explain it fully, but either you get it or you don't. I am not saying all religions are the same. There are varieties. But they are the same in that they somehow block the development of class consciousness by readily providing supernatural explanations for everything. So I am basically talking about the damage religion does on this level only - not talking about religious wars, crusades, etc. That's an entirely different matter. For now I am focusing on class consciousness alone.basically, yes it is another worldview, but religious ideas are also not so separate from secular liberal ideas which also provide an alternative explanation - often idealist, elitist, and conformist - for why the world is how it is. Religious ideas today are generally just some form of bourgeoise ideology. When it comes to specific organization around religious ideas, there are different dynamics involved. A worker might be a catholic, but might still be radicalized by strike waves or by racism or imperial war; a white supremacist religious group is something else and their members would need to break from that religious group if they radicalized.


In this sense, isn't the fight against religion a good fight (and not unnecessary, as some comrades seem to believe)? Kind of like fighting against racism - it may lead to progressive thinking, and such thinking may eventually lead one to consider communism.it's not abstractly good and it's not really a fight when it's abstract ideas vs. another set of ideas.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The problem here is that once you become adept at deconstructing religious thinking, you begin to see the religious nature of communism itself. Your own language reveals a kind of religious fanaticism, in the way you speak of "class consciousness" and "progressive thinking" as if they are some inevitable millennial destiny for humanity, as ordained by the prophet Marx and his disciples.so revolutionaries organize just for fun? I wouldn't care about any of this if I felt it was all historical/deity determined. My Marxism is based out of a broader humanism: humans make history (society) with a range of what is materially possible.

What Marxism has in common with religion is that it is a world-view, an explanation for why the human world is as it is. But to equate the two requires a view so wide that everything is featureless: libertarians, weberian sociology, Freudian psychology, and Trekkies would all be the same as religion by this type of criteria.


Most smart atheists I know understand this, and steer clear of communism for that reason. What were Bolshevik, Stalinist and Maoist excesses if not religious crusades in the cause of communism?various different examples of political situations? The Bolshevik "excesses" are the result of a crisis-ridden revolutionary situation, Stalinist repression IMO is political (a new political elite wanting to consolidate their power over workers). Atheist jacobins or religious English levelers are fundamentally political, even if one is expressed in humanist terms while the other used religious concepts.


So I don't really understand why an anti-religious person would be interested in communist ideology; how do you get from the laws of physics and Darwinian evolution to communism, without invoking some arbitrary (and largely Judeo-Christian-derived) principles that have no more basis in nature than the Resurrection or the notion that "all men are created equal"?i don't know, maybe have a job and strike and recognize that workers and capitalists have totally opposed hopes and wants for how to live.

[Comrade Jacob]

The whole 'new-atheist' crowd love to use 'logic' & 'reason' when it comes to creationism and evolution but not when it comes to politics they are just failures. For example: Hitchens' support for the Iraq war, Dawkins blatant liberalism, Harris' Islamophobia (and I have no clue what Dennit does.)