Religious Background of People Here

[Antiochus]

I assume the bulk of the forum is composed of atheists or some type of agnostic. Nevertheless, what is the religious background of your parents or yourself as a child?
I was raised by 2 'lapsed' Catholics, my mother more so than father. My mother's family had converted to Protestantism but the area they lived was overwhelmingly Catholic and so culturally that is what they raised their children as.

Though no one was actually "religious" besides my grandmother.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I'm probably a rare case, always been atheist and surrounded by atheists, even my grandparents, I did go to a catholic school however, but never cared much for the religious aspect.

[Laika]

I've been an Atheist since I was about 9. About 4/5 I went to primary school "with a christian ethos" and was introduced to the idea of a "god". I did have some sort of religious belief for a time but it was very vague and didn't stick. Neither of my parents were religious and differences between my parents mean that the subject has been taboo (by dad being an atheist, my mum being more spiritual and open to the idea).

Edit: there are a few polls on Revleft about religious belief from the religion sub-forum in opposing ideologies if you are interested. :)

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/193524-Do-you-believe-in-god(s)-Poll-VI
https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/189311-Which-Religion-do-you-follow-II
https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/103184-What-religion-is-most-appealing-to-you

[GLF]

Raised Christian. Agnostic since 13. Apatheist since 21.

[pastradamus]

I come from a Catholic background. Now an Athiest. But still "Catholic"....over here it's more than just a religion.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I come from a Catholic background. Now an Athiest. But still "Catholic"....over here it's more than just a religion.

Haha, sounds about right. I was also raised catholic but it never spoke to me. I kind of like the mysterious aspects but left the myths and hierarchy behind long ago. Can't leave my extended catholic immigrant family though. They seem fine with me having 0 faith as long as I keep some of the shame and cultural bits. :D

[willowtooth]

to inject a little diversity of thought maybe we can rate ourselves on the dawkins scale? I'm a 7

https://www.revleft.space/vb/cache.php?img=http%3A%2F%2Fwp.patheos.com.s3.amazo naws.com%2Fblogs%2Funreasonablefaith%2Ffiles%2F201 2%2F10%2Fdawkins-scale.png

[Jimmie Higgins]

6 I guess, mostly because I don't like new atheism. Also because I don't care about the question of god enough to want to argue about the non-existence of it in general. When I'm preached to, I'm a 7.

[Radical Atom]

to inject a little diversity of thought maybe we can rate ourselves on the dawkins scale?
The "new atheist" movement is nothing but proof that a lack of belief in a particular god or gods in itself doesn't make you any less of an irrational, superstitious degenerate. Dawkins in particular is a vile scumfuck and an idiot of cataclysmic proportions. No surprise this stupid, useless list comes from him, it's nothing but a silly self-identification game. I mean what is the fucking purpose other than see who has the biggest or more "special" number? Surely it's not clarification or brevity because as the scale itself shows, each category can be summed in a single sentence which is quicker than having to explain the whole thing (come on now, nobody outside new "atheist"(tm) circles knows this scale, I sure didn't till now).

A lot of neo-reactionaries (lolbertarians, ancaps, evolutionary "psychologists", MRAs and other antifeminists) would consider themselves either (new) "atheist" or part of the "skeptic" community. They usually do in fact try to present themselves as the "rationals", against "crazy" "irrational" feminists or "racist" anti-racists. And yet they are as unscientific, as obscurantist and as retrograde as the popes, rabbis or mullahs of before. They don't bow to a crucifix, but that's because they bow to the god of capital.

And in case you were wondering, I'm speaking as a rabid anti-clerical and anti-religious atheist.

[BIXX]

At least an 80 on that scale friendos.


for real the question of god irritates me, because if there is a god and it assumes a morality, the only thing that grants that god's morality is the power of that god itself and i'm not concerned with trying to show why i won't present myself as a subject of a circular entity's morality. so even if there is a god, which there isn't, i'm still a nihilist.

[willowtooth]

The "new atheist" movement is nothing but proof that a lack of belief in a particular god or gods in itself doesn't make you any less of an irrational, superstitious degenerate. I dont know what a new atheist is and I had no idea I was one. I rather like thinking of myself as "new" though makes me feel special. Do you have a proper definition for "new atheists"?


Dawkins in particular is a vile scumfuck and an idiot of cataclysmic proportions.Hey take it easy, Dawkins is consider one of the great atheist thinkers. I don't even know his political beliefs, I imagine he must've said something anti-marxist at one point to earn such derision, but atheism itself is a-political. You wouldn't accuse Charles Darwin of being anti-marxist


No surprise this stupid, useless list comes from him, it's nothing but a silly self-identification game. I mean what is the fucking purpose other than see who has the biggest or more "special" number? Surely it's not clarification or brevity because as the scale itself shows, each category can be summed in a single sentence which is quicker than having to explain the whole thing (come on now, nobody outside new "atheist"(tm) circles knows this scale, I sure didn't till now).who would be the most special number in this situation? I guess amongst marxists there would be some kind of a purity aspect here, maybe you think even agnosticism is so uncommon amongst leftists that there is no point in differentiating between someone who has slight doubts in church and someone who has never seen the inside of one but still believes in ghosts? It's much more accurate than that stupid political compass test you see everywhere


A lot of neo-reactionaries (lolbertarians, ancaps, evolutionary "psychologists", MRAs and other antifeminists) would consider themselves either (new) "atheist" or part of the "skeptic" community. They usually do in fact try to present themselves as the "rationals", against "crazy" "irrational" feminists or "racist" anti-racists. And yet they are as unscientific, as obscurantist and as retrograde as the popes, rabbis or mullahs of before. They don't bow to a crucifix, but that's because they bow to the god of capital.they are almost completely a religious movement themselves, MRA's are practically a fully owned subsidiary of the catholic church. i'm pretty sure they collect tax free church tithings. there are no libertarians or ancaps these are just fascist "lite" recruitment tools thats why their name changes so often.

They are skeptics as much as one can be in 2017 without being a complete crazy person who believes the world is flat. Ask anyone of them about the jews and you will see that good ole christian fury rise out of them. There isnt one who is not completely driven by hallucinatory antisemitic conspiracy theories. However, if you are an atheist in America and you are not a socialist for whatever reason, you are basically left without a party and some confused atheists may get wrapped up in those circles, I imagine some atheists joined the nazi party as well, but just like the original nazi party none of it is about atheism

[GLF]

Too many New Atheists are in bed with reactionaries. Particularly in Europe it seems that all atheists want to do is rail on Muslims.

As for the Dawkins scale, I would say 4, 5, 6 are the reasonable choices. 1 is laughable. 7 might be reasonable depending on what one means by "God".

[Jimmie Higgins]

New atheism is the term for a group of writers who, post 9/11, argued more or less that religion was at the root of political/social problems. A Marxist critique would be that the new atheists view religion in aggressively idealistic ways. They see religiosity as a problem of irrational belief and this lack of reason then causes bad policies, etc. This view obviously lends itself to elitism, but also to islamophobia and alt-right beliefs.

And new atheist adherents (like many people who believe their politics are "neutral" and based solely on reason) can be smug assholes - which is prob where the vitriol against them from other atheists comes from.

[willowtooth]

New atheism is the term for a group of writers who, post 9/11, argued more or less that religion was at the root of political/social problems. A Marxist critique would be that the new atheists view religion in aggressively idealistic ways. Well shit that sounds like me I guess I'm a new atheist?


They see religiosity as a problem of irrational belief and this lack of reason then causes bad policies, etc. This view obviously lends itself to elitism, but also to islamophobia and alt-right beliefs. What if your not white and christian would it have the same effect?

And new atheist adherents (like many people who believe their politics are "neutral" and based solely on reason) can be smug assholes - which is prob where the vitriol against them from other atheists comes from.I'm certainly not neutral or reasonable.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well shit that sounds like me I guess I'm a new atheist?
I hope not. Here's a sample of the "rationality" they exhibit:

[Sam Harris, when asked why men are the vast majority of the "new atheist" milieu:]


“The atheist variable just has this—it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”


Christopher Hitchens was also part of this group and used atheism as the justification for the US bombing Iraq.

These guys are so rational that they claimed that the US is messed up because of a bunch of irrational Christians and on the one hand and then argued that the US should bomb the Middle East as part of a war between secularism and Islam on the other.

Their ideas are the dumb wrong ideas of middle class professionals... which is also prob why the alt-right has adopted it.


What if your not white and christian would it have the same effect?
I'm certainly not neutral or reasonable.non-white non-christians can disagree with Islam or Hinduism or Christianity on religious grounds, materialist ground or just in the way religion is used in politics--that's not "new atheism" necessarily.

But yes, non-white non-Christians can and did make shallow arguments about a "clash of civilizations" or war between secularism and Islam in order to also be tools for imperialism or repression.

[GLF]

Well shit that sounds like me I guess I'm a new atheist?

If you refer to yourself as a new atheist on the basis of Jimmie's particular critique of it then I'm afraid you're not a Marxist. Religion is not the root of political/social problems - that would be capitalism, sir, from which religion is merely one symptom, the opium of the masses. But considering you are dialectically unsound on pretty much everything else as it relates to Marxian theory this doesn't surprise me in the least bit, no offence.


What if your not white and christian would it have the same effect?

Why would a christian "see religiosity as a problem of irrational belief"? As for whites, yes, in the current system whites have the most vested in the unjust system so of course they're far more susceptible to the sort of reactionism outlined by Jimmie. But sorry to burst your bubble...reactionism while largely a product of the capitalist institution of white supremacy is not limited to whites alone in who it afflicts. One good example is Ayaan Hirsi Ali who married a white man, is a hero to white racists who seemingly hates her own people and has probably spewed far more venom towards religious minorities than anyone in recent memory, and she gets away with it, too. Liberals like you are too obsessed with whitey to pay people like her much mind. :rolleyes:


I'm certainly not neutral or reasonable.

QFT

[BIXX]

What if your not white and christian would it have the same effect?


Your opinions are complete shit. (This is not ad hominem cause it isn't the basis of the coming argument btw)

Do you support queers like Milo Yiannopoulos in their alt-right fascism? What about Ben Carson? Your point here seems to be that minorities cannot be reactionaries in the most dangerous ways, so why not vote for Trump in solidarity with that queer and that black? Because clearly, they're supporting what we need destroyed.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[willowtooth]

I hope not. Here's a sample of the "rationality" they exhibit:

[Sam Harris, when asked why men are the vast majority of the "new atheist" milieu:]didn't Trotsky say something similar that agnostics are just emasculated atheists?.



Christopher Hitchens was also part of this group and used atheism as the justification for the US bombing Iraq.

These guys are so rational that they claimed that the US is messed up because of a bunch of irrational Christians and on the one hand and then argued that the US should bomb the Middle East as part of a war between secularism and Islam on the other.I think hitchens was just saying Saddam was so horrible anyone on earth would be justified in taking him out, Hitchens had such strong opinions on Saddam that he would probably support ISIS overthrowing Saddam today. However Dawkins was strongly against the Iraq war from the beginning and on multiple occasions criticized not only Bush and the US but even his own country the UK's involvement. So right there we have a major difference on political policy between 2 of what from I can see is only 4 people. This suggests the term "new atheist" is just a slur


Their ideas are the dumb wrong ideas of middle class professionals... which is also prob why the alt-right has adopted it.I couldn't imagine the alt right adopting anything from either of those two especially dawkins, maybe in the perverse way that fascists claim social Darwinism is related to Charles Darwin but that's about it


non-white non-christians can disagree with Islam or Hinduism or Christianity on religious grounds, materialist ground or just in the way religion is used in politics--that's not "new atheism" necessarily.

But yes, non-white non-Christians can and did make shallow arguments about a "clash of civilizations" or war between secularism and Islam in order to also be tools for imperialism or repression.
I have never seen a black or hispanic athiest make that claim. Most serious atheists wouldn't call christian countries "secular" in the first place



Your opinions are complete shit. (This is not ad hominem cause it isn't the basis of the coming argument btw)

Do you support queers like Milo Yiannopoulos in their alt-right fascism? What about Ben Carson? Your point here seems to be that minorities cannot be reactionaries in the most dangerous ways, so why not vote for Trump in solidarity with that queer and that black? Because clearly, they're supporting what we need destroyed.

I have no clue where you got that considering both those men are devout Christians? What I mean is would somebody who grew up around muslims, went to mosque every week as a child come to the same racist (or islamophobic, stupid word) conclusions towards muslims? Or is this just a phenomena of recently de-converted white Christians? is this just an entirely new racist phenomena brought about by the war? wouldn't these people be converting to islam, if the buddhists were the ones attacking?

[Radical Atom]

Do you have a proper definition for "new atheists"?
Jimmie Higgins pretty much summed it up but I can elaborate a little. As far as I know it is a phenomenon that started to get traction in either the very early or mid 2000s, mostly centered in the Anglo-Saxon social sphere. I think it's safe to assume that it started in the USA as a reaction to creationism and christian fundamentalism and their attempts to penetrate public education and law (Wikipedia mentions several "atheist" best-sellers at around the same time), then it spread to the UK and Australia after it gained popularity online. What could have been a pretty harmless, even progressive movement calling for further secularization quickly turned ugly as all kinds of reactionary degenerates turned towards it, specially with post 9/11 hysteria. The fact that most of their "foundational" writings (and... stances?) where written by the four horsemen (Hitchens, Harris, Dennet and Dawkins) didn't help either. Don't know about Dennet, but all the others quickly became darlings of the imperialist right wing and racists.
The problem with... scratch that, there's too many to count here. Some of the basic problems with "new atheism" is that it really doesn't bring anything new to the table. They are popularizers at best, which it isn't very often.
Their critique of religion is as wide as the ocean and as deep as a puddle, it really is bedazzling how these people can be so smug and proud for doing something any idiot could do. Of course religious texts and teachings are full of contradictions and hypocrisies, of course they were written by men, of course their so called "morality" is wholly bankrupt, of course the idea of God is logically indefensible, of course creationists are fucking idiots or scammers. Anyone can demolish a fundamentalist, creationist or not, because the "fundamentals" do not have any ground to stand on in the first place.
In a letter to Arnold Ruge Karl Marx once said that the label atheist reminded him of the children who assure everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the boogey man. Man was he right.
They go shooting fish in barrels and they feel like freaking Jacques Cousteau.


Hey take it easy, Dawkins is consider one of the great atheist thinkers.
The "atheist" movement is beyond fucked and better left to die off if a narcissistic racist rape apologist is the best it can offer.


I don't even know his political beliefs, I imagine he must've said something anti-marxist at one point to earn such derision
Well, among other qualifications, yes, the garbage he spews certainly is ant-marxist.
I believe the guardian published many articles on his antics, him being from the UK and all. You could check those out. I'll give you a quick rundown though.
1 Do you remember Ahmed, that American muslim student of 14 who got brutally harassed by racists* because he brought a homemade clock to class that people assumed was a time bomb? Dawkins obsessively tweeted about the poor kid calling him a hoaxer because of the suit that followed, then proceeded to compare him to an ISIS child executioner when told that he was only a child.* They even tried to force him to sign a confession and was also interrogated with no family member present.
2 He also said that women who were drinking when they were raped should not be trusted by a court and compared being raped to driving a car.
3 He publicly praised Geert Wilders' islamophobic propaganda video Fitna, the English version I believe, which I heard is more politically correct, but obviously just as racist. The hilarious part is that he started with the copout "if it turns out you are a racist..." He knows he's a piece of shit and people are going to call him out for it. Imagine someone saying: "If it turns out you're a racist I'll disown you but man I loved Mein Kampf!"
4 He tweeted a video by none other than UK's most well known sentient fedora, Sargon of Akkad, in which he used the tired right wing trope of feminists being in bed with islamists. It showed a jihadist and a feminist singing together. He took it down, but only because the face of the feminist that appeared in it had been harassed in real life.
5 He constantly sidesteps with "muslims are not a race", wouldn't surprised if we end up seeing neonazis saying that "Judaism is a religion, not a race".
6 He said that Islam (therefore, muslims by extension) is the greatest evil today.


but atheism itself is a-political.

Their "atheism" may appear apolitical only because it is so fucking superficial and vapid.

Atheism in on itself is useless, it's just an abstraction; for it to be meaningful it must be put into practice.

Private Property and Communism
Atheism, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism. Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.
Atheism, "old" atheism that is, is part of the legacy of the international revolutionary left. Marxist critique of religion wasn't just a mere theological polemic. It was wholly political and partisan! Religion is not simply "irrationality", "absurd things people believe" it serves a particular purpose: to obfuscate and justify/naturalize class antagonism. Maybe people should start to ask not only what sustains religion, but what is religion sustaining.

A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Simply put, the suffering and depravity of the current world don't exist because of religion, rather, religion exists because of the depravity and suffering of this world; to both justify and alleviate them.
The real purpose, therefore, is to abolish the conditions which necessitate religion, what makes religion "necessary" for people.

Letter from Marx to Arnold Ruge In Dresden
I requested further that religion should be criticised in the framework of criticism of political conditions rather than that political conditions should be criticised in the framework of religion, since this is more in accord with the nature of a newspaper and the educational level of the reading public; for religion in itself is without content, it owes its being not to heaven but to the earth, and with the abolition of distorted reality, of which it is the theory, it will collapse of itself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

didn't Trotsky say something similar that agnostics are just emasculated atheists?. I'm not familiar with that, do you have a quote? If your paraphrase is accurate to the connotations and meanings used in the actual quote, then it's kinda fucked up turn of phrase but there is not a parallel in the intent and meaning unless you believe Trotsky literally thought agnostics were castrated. Your paraphrase says that agnostics are like a watered-down version of atheists, not that women aren't as involved in atheist events/movement because they are essentially less rational.

Hitches was not simply anti-Saddam, he famously switched to a pro-neoconservative, pro-Paul Wolfowitz position and argued that the more secular, rational US is better fit to rule Iraq. He used atheism to justify Imperialism in the most colonial terms possible: "terrorism vs civilization" and then "Islamofascism vs civilization". He also argued that the US was not brutal enough in Afghanistan.

Dawkins: against the Iraq war, but in favor of the US going to war in Afghanistan.


I couldn't imagine the alt right adopting anything from either of those two especially dawkins, maybe in the perverse way that fascists claim social Darwinism is related to Charles Darwin but that's about it
Yeah, Dawkins is a better test than Harris who said he's a liberal but the only people in Europe with a good understanding of Islam are the fascists.

So let's look at the most progressive sample of this group instead. Dawkins on accusations of fascism and racism directed at populist-right Geert Wilders' film about Islam: "as far as this film is concerned, I can see nothing in it to substantiate such extreme vilification...Geert Wilders, if it should turn out that you are a racist or a gratuitous stirrer and provocateur I withdraw my respect, but on the strength of Fitna alone I salute you as a man of courage, who has the balls to stand up to a monstrous enemy."

Anyhooophttf... NOTE: JUST READ THIS LAST PART AND SKIP THE TOP OF THE REPLY IF YOU GOT SHIT TO DO --IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT ALL THAT OR WHAT BAD QUOTES THEY'VE SAID... (ALSO I'M NOT 'YELLING'...WELL, ACTUALLY I AM YELLING IRL. BUT AT SOMEONE ELSE... THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT. THE CAPS ARE MEANT TO MAKE THIS PART STAND-OUT... ALSO FOR COMIC EFFECT) ...The problem is their whole approach and understanding of religion as a social phenomena. At best it can only present an upside-down funhouse mirror view of religion, at worst it easily becomes justification/excuse for some vile shit.

I don't know the Trotsky quote you referenced, but I have read things where he wrote about religion in Russia in the aftermath of the revolution.

He was a strident atheist but had a marxist and materialist view of religion (not unique to him or Bolsheviks). Unlike Dawkins who seems to believe that religious sentiment is something like the 'failure of science to dislodge irrational ideas' (an idealist view of ideas changing due to other ideas) or that belief in religion is a form of "insanity" (a moralistic view that kinds of beliefs are an indication personal value or failings... 'those savages and their religious idols'), I think Trotsky's view, more or less, was that irrational ideas take root in society when their are unexplained forces that control people's lives. Natural science could eliminate most views that floods are caused by ill-tempered gods or whatnot, but Capitalist economics and social science still shamanistically throw bones into a jar to guess at future and talk about an infallible invisible hand to describe the main economic-social impacts on our lives.

This lack of control over the very way we survive on a daily basis is the engine for religious sentiment and the hope that if our lives are ruled by an unseen force, it's a benevolent invisible being rather than the blind struggle for profits or the policy papers of some bureaucrat who thinks that an empire might stay an empire longer if they invaded and bombed your country.

Religion is not "irrationality" on the level of a social phenomena as the New Atheists seem to think. It serves a social function that, at best, help people cope with being in a powerless situation; at worst religious organizations and practices help reenforce things like patriarchy, sectarianism, etc which in turn reenforce the ruling order in which people have no power in the first place.

No one becomes an evangelical Christian in the u.s. BECAUSE they decided that creationism is a better explanation than Darwinism. They become evangelical because of some loneliness or sense of purposelessness or they had real hardship and tragedy and were shunned by the neoliberal welfare state but found open arms in an evangelical sect. Then they defend creationism because they perceive anything else as an attack on the validity of this broader belief that, while objectively imaginary, gave real comfort on a subjective level.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[willowtooth]

Jimmie Higgins pretty much summed it up but I can elaborate a little. As far as I know it is a phenomenon that started to get traction in either the very early or mid 2000s, mostly centered in the Anglo-Saxon social sphere. I think it's safe to assume that it started in the USA as a reaction to creationism and christian fundamentalism and their attempts to penetrate public education and law (Wikipedia mentions several "atheist" best-sellers at around the same time), then it spread to the UK and Australia after it gained popularity online. What could have been a pretty harmless, even progressive movement calling for further secularization quickly turned ugly as all kinds of reactionary degenerates turned towards it, specially with post 9/11 hysteria. The fact that most of their "foundational" writings (and... stances?) where written by the four horsemen (Hitchens, Harris, Dennet and Dawkins) didn't help either. Don't know about Dennet, but all the others quickly became darlings of the imperialist right wing and racists. so wait are the "new atheists" the 4 horsemen or are they the people who use some of their cherrypicked out of context vaguely worded arguments to trick/seduce people into becoming nazis, only to tell them that all atheists should be killed or imprisoned later on? the same way they like to use old racist che guevarra quotes



The problem with... scratch that, there's too many to count here. Some of the basic problems with "new atheism" is that it really doesn't bring anything new to the table. They are popularizers at best, which it isn't very often.
Their critique of religion is as wide as the ocean and as deep as a puddle, it really is bedazzling how these people can be so smug and proud for doing something any idiot could do. Of course religious texts and teachings are full of contradictions and hypocrisies, of course they were written by men, of course their so called "morality" is wholly bankrupt, of course the idea of God is logically indefensible, of course creationists are fucking idiots or scammers. Anyone can demolish a fundamentalist, creationist or not, because the "fundamentals" do not have any ground to stand on in the first place.You say that but 42% of Americans believe the world is 10,000 years old. More believe god created the universe, religion is entirely injected into mainstream american politics. Why do they want to cut food stamps and welfare because they believe the church should be in charge of all charity for the poor, why do they hate public schools? because they want segregation for one thing, but mostly they want private religious schools, why are they shutting down abortion clinics in droves right now or fighting against lgbt laws, like the recent of expulsion of transexuals from the military, or why the fuck do you think we are at war in the first place? It has less to do with this insipid conspiracy theory of the wolfowitz doctrine and more to do with the fact that over 90% of the DOD believe in christian dominion theory and actively encourage it amongst the ranks to the point that its practically a requirement to become an officer. If you don't believe me try finding a single atheist american general


In a letter to Arnold Ruge Karl Marx once said that the label atheist reminded him of the children who assure everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the boogey man. Man was he right.
They go shooting fish in barrels and they feel like freaking Jacques Cousteau.I can't find this quote, although I could only find 2 of the 8 letters online

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09-alt.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_05-alt.htm




The "atheist" movement is beyond fucked and better left to die off if a narcissistic racist rape apologist is the best it can offer.

Well, among other qualifications, yes, the garbage he spews certainly is ant-marxist.
I believe the guardian published many articles on his antics, him being from the UK and all. You could check those out. I'll give you a quick rundown though.
1 Do you remember Ahmed, that American muslim student of 14 who got brutally harassed by racists* because he brought a homemade clock to class that people assumed was a time bomb? Dawkins obsessively tweeted about the poor kid calling him a hoaxer because of the suit that followed, then proceeded to compare him to an ISIS child executioner when told that he was only a child.* They even tried to force him to sign a confession and was also interrogated with no family member present.
2 He also said that women who were drinking when they were raped should not be trusted by a court and compared being raped to driving a car.
3 He publicly praised Geert Wilders' islamophobic propaganda video Fitna, the English version I believe, which I heard is more politically correct, but obviously just as racist. The hilarious part is that he started with the copout "if it turns out you are a racist..." He knows he's a piece of shit and people are going to call him out for it. Imagine someone saying: "If it turns out you're a racist I'll disown you but man I loved Mein Kampf!"
4 He tweeted a video by none other than UK's most well known sentient fedora, Sargon of Akkad, in which he used the tired right wing trope of feminists being in bed with islamists. It showed a jihadist and a feminist singing together. He took it down, but only because the face of the feminist that appeared in it had been harassed in real life.
5 He constantly sidesteps with "muslims are not a race", wouldn't surprised if we end up seeing neonazis saying that "Judaism is a religion, not a race".
6 He said that Islam (therefore, muslims by extension) is the greatest evil today.

out of context and cherry picked, I could easily find many christians calling him an evil marxist feminazi islam apologist, no doubt though, these were weaponized by the so called alt right which im starting to believe were really hired russians lol (seriously where have they all gone?)


Their "atheism" may appear apolitical only because it is so fucking superficial and vapid.

Atheism in on itself is useless, it's just an abstraction; for it to be meaningful it must be put into practice. How can you describe atheism itself as useless yet simultaneously declare their brand of atheism to be somehow superficial and invalid? Surely your not complaining that dawkins should be more useless and abstract? I think it should be said he's a biologist not a philosopher or even a politician


Atheism, "old" atheism that is, is part of the legacy of the international revolutionary left. Marxist critique of religion wasn't just a mere theological polemic. It was wholly political and partisan! Religion is not simply "irrationality", "absurd things people believe" it serves a particular purpose: to obfuscate and justify/naturalize class antagonism. Maybe people should start to ask not only what sustains religion, but what is religion sustaining.
c'mon thats a little eurocentric there are tribes that have existed for thousands of years without religion I think we have to go back tens of thousands of years to find the first atheists, if anything we should be defining "the atheism of the international revolutionary left" as "new atheism"



Simply put, the suffering and depravity of the current world don't exist because of religion, rather, religion exists because of the depravity and suffering of this world; to both justify and alleviate them.
The real purpose, therefore, is to abolish the conditions which necessitate religion, what makes religion "necessary" for people.It's not a competition

I'm not familiar with that, do you have a quote?If your paraphrase is accurate to the connotations and meanings used in the actual quote, then it's kinda fucked up turn of phrase but there is not a parallel in the intent and meaning unless you believe Trotsky literally thought agnostics were castrated. Your paraphrase says that agnostics are like a watered-down version of atheists, not that women aren't as involved in atheist events/movement because they are essentially less rational.

Here you go, he seems to be talking about the usage of the word itself more than the psychology behind the people who identify as them


In his foreword Brailsford does not miss the opportunity to take up a defence of religion. It is curious that in doing so he calls himself an agnostic. In Britain this word tends to be used as a polite, drawing room, emasculated name for an atheist. More often it characterizes a semi-atheism which is unsure of itself, i.e. the variety of idealism which on the question of God abstains from voting, to put it in parliamentary language. And so we see here once again the force of cant, convention, the half-truth., the half-lie and philosophical hypocrisy. Implying his atheism and calling himself an agnostic Brailsford here takes on the defence of religion. These are the ambiguous customs which British revolutionaries will have to expel from the ranks of the labour movement. Enough of hide-and-seek, call things by their names! https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/britain/intro03.htm





Hitches was not simply anti-Saddam, he famously switched to a pro-neoconservative, pro-Paul Wolfowitz position and argued that the more secular, rational US is better fit to rule Iraq. He used atheism to justify Imperialism in the most colonial terms possible: "terrorism vs civilization" and then "Islamofascism vs civilization". He also argued that the US was not brutal enough in Afghanistan.I'd like to see that quote I know he liked to promote what he called "godless constitutionalism" but I doubt you could find me a single kind word he ever said about george bush or any republican for that matter




Dawkins: against the Iraq war, but in favor of the US going to war in Afghanistan.who wasn't?



Yeah, Dawkins is a better test than Harris who said he's a liberal but the only people in Europe with a good understanding of Islam are the fascists.

So let's look at the most progressive sample of this group instead. Dawkins on accusations of fascism and racism directed at populist-right Geert Wilders' film about Islam: "as far as this film is concerned, I can see nothing in it to substantiate such extreme vilification...Geert Wilders, if it should turn out that you are a racist or a gratuitous stirrer and provocateur I withdraw my respect, but on the strength of Fitna alone I salute you as a man of courage, who has the balls to stand up to a monstrous enemy."he's also very anti israel so you might be on to something with harris here


The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth. […] the ideology of Judaism remains a lightning rod for intolerance to this day. […] Jews, insofar as they are religious, believe that they are bearers of a unique covenant with God. As a consequence, they have spent the last two thousand years collaborating with those who see them as different by seeing themselves as irretrievably so. Judaism is as intrinsically divisive, as ridiculous in its literalism, and as at odds with the civilizing insights of modernity as any other religion. Jewish settlers, by exercising their "freedom of belief" on contested land, are now one of the principal obstacles to peace in the Middle East. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Judaism




Anyhooophttf... NOTE: JUST READ THIS LAST PART AND SKIP THE TOP OF THE REPLY IF YOU GOT SHIT TO DO --IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT ALL THAT OR WHAT BAD QUOTES THEY'VE SAID... (ALSO I'M NOT 'YELLING'...WELL, ACTUALLY I AM YELLING IRL. BUT AT SOMEONE ELSE... THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT. THE CAPS ARE MEANT TO MAKE THIS PART STAND-OUT... ALSO FOR COMIC EFFECT) and now ave satani from the tenerife orchestra

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H3UiwU1N5I



...The problem is their whole approach and understanding of religion as a social phenomena. At best it can only present an upside-down funhouse mirror view of religion, at worst it easily becomes justification/excuse for some vile shit.

I don't know the Trotsky quote you referenced, but I have read things where he wrote about religion in Russia in the aftermath of the revolution.

He was a strident atheist but had a marxist and materialist view of religion (not unique to him or Bolsheviks). Unlike Dawkins who seems to believe that religious sentiment is something like the 'failure of science to dislodge irrational ideas' (an idealist view of ideas changing due to other ideas) or that belief in religion is a form of "insanity" (a moralistic view that kinds of beliefs are an indication personal value or failings... 'those savages and their religious idols'), I think Trotsky's view, more or less, was that irrational ideas take root in society when their are unexplained forces that control people's lives. Natural science could eliminate most views that floods are caused by ill-tempered gods or whatnot, but Capitalist economics and social science still shamanistically throw bones into a jar to guess at future and talk about an infallible invisible hand to describe the main economic-social impacts on our lives. I wonder if they were ever communists?


This lack of control over the very way we survive on a daily basis is the engine for religious sentiment and the hope that if our lives are ruled by an unseen force, it's a benevolent invisible being rather than the blind struggle for profits or the policy papers of some bureaucrat who thinks that an empire might stay an empire longer if they invaded and bombed your country.

Religion is not "irrationality" on the level of a social phenomena as the New Atheists seem to think. It serves a social function that, at best, help people cope with being in a powerless situation; at worst religious organizations and practices help reenforce things like patriarchy, sectarianism, etc which in turn reenforce the ruling order in which people have no power in the first place.

No one becomes an evangelical Christian in the u.s. BECAUSE they decided that creationism is a better explanation than Darwinism. They become evangelical because of some loneliness or sense of purposelessness or they had real hardship and tragedy and were shunned by the neoliberal welfare state but found open arms in an evangelical sect. Then they defend creationism because they perceive anything else as an attack on the validity of this broader belief that, while objectively imaginary, gave real comfort on a subjective level.scary...

[Jimmie Higgins]

Lol, I'm sorry for suggesting that your intellectual gods are fallable. I guess by supporting imperialism and having a shallow and un-materialist critique of religion that neither clarifies it's existence as a social phenomena or an effective way to counter it (without warplanes or profiling by the state) I just don't understand their divine wisdom.

[Wageslavebrah]

My family are Jehovah witnesses on my fathers side and went to a couple of christian schools as a young teen. its quite ironic that i really started to become an atheist during those years, i was such a reactionary tool bag listening to black and death metal and doing dem vocals around my classmates and pretty much everyone i knew at the time. however recently ive had a change of heart and while i do still consider myself agnostic i do believe in a "divine" aspect of reality and religion often reveals those hidden truths within us. it was quite difficult for me to accept this and only recently have justified it within myself. lol i used to fap nonstop to Richard Dawkins was about dat "fuck yo god" life. this has also lead me to my biggest critique of the capitalist system (specifically the Keynesian model which brings out in my opinion the absolute worst perversion of state and capitalist power) in that can quite easily take the "soul" out of man and replace it with worthless material bullshit. i cant even get a decent working pen from these walmart capitalist scum, yet we are consuming absolute shit with very little choice to do so. i dont think even most religious people actually believe in god anymore and i find that to be pretty fucking sad. there must be a new movement within the consuming class that brings us back the "lost civilization" yet in an evolved way of thought that also values things like logic and reason.

[willowtooth]

Lol, I'm sorry for suggesting that your intellectual gods are fallable. I guess by supporting imperialism and having a shallow and un-materialist critique of religion that neither clarifies it's existence as a social phenomena or an effective way to counter it (without warplanes or profiling by the state) I just don't understand their divine wisdom.
I forgive you

[Jimmie Higgins]

I forgive you

Hahaha. Aww, no "like" option in this part of the site.

Anyway, if your interested, here's a recent criticism of Dawkins from a scientific perspective. The author here makes the mistake of also thinking that bad ideas can be replaced with better ones through reason alone, but that's common among people who trade in ideas.

But the criticism of his science parallels my criticism of his version of atheism: his ideas are flat and do not look at development in isolation of specific context and conditions.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-08/the-dangerous-delusions-of-richard-dawkins/

Edit: also while I support denying fascists a platform, as much as I disagree with Dawkins I don't think there should have been an effort made to get his appearance canceled. That misses the point of "no platform" and also gives credence to liberal, conservative, and alt-right claims that the left is generally intolerant. I think a better approach might have been to try and pressure the station to also have a non-islamophobic atheist there for debate.

In other words I don't think new atheists are fascists, I think their lazy version of atheism just too easily and frequently becomes a tool for fascists.