Militant Atheism

[Fraushai]

Is it necessary?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What a silly question. Of course it is. Religion won't go away if we simply ignore it.

[Dean]

What a silly question. Of course it is. Religion won't go away if we simply ignore it.

I disagree. Under certain circumastances, where a church or denomination is directly calling for violence against innocent people, yes, we need to fight that with force if necessary. However, in terms of purely ideological difference, it is not only unfair, but irrational to be militant against the religious, or even the institutions. We must dissolve the church by rationality, rather than violence.

[eyedrop]

We must always advocate a more scientific view and that is inherently opposed to the religious view. It's just a part of that struggle and that means try to stop the institutions from spreading unscientific views. The metods are debatable though, ridicule and social contempt seems fine to me but that is rather things that comes naturally as a scientific view of the world shows contempt to all non-scientific views.

[Comrade Rage]

Is it necessary?
UMMMmmmmmmmmm......YEAH!
Especially given the current spate of fundamentalist bullshit that is currently polluting the world; courtesy of the three major religions.

[Sentinel]

Yes, it is. For the simple reason that it is perfectly possible to save more children from being indoctrinated, by simply taking this issue seriously and stepping in. By actively fighting religion we can stop these mental epidemics from spreading, and finally defeat them.

[mykittyhasaboner]

as comrades Crum, Sentinel, and Noxion already stated, yes. the religions arent going to disapear willingly, no matter how much reasoning you give them.

[YKTMX]

"Militant Atheism" is a petty-bourgeois posture plastered with a cheap facade of radicalism. It is a redolent of the worst idealist excesses of the Young Hegelians and is completely alien to Marxism.

The reason people believe in God is not because they are stupud, or ill-informed, or have been indoctrinated, or gullible, it is because religion offers unreal solutions to real problems.

The goal of socialists is not to "criticise" religion, but to replace unreal solutions with real solutions on the basis of an engagement with the oppressed as they actually exist, and not as we'd like to them to exist.

"Militant Atheism", therefore, is a dead-duck as far solving our problems goes.

[al8]

YLTMX those reasons that you state above are not mutually exlusive. It's wrong to think that only one thing can be the case, instead of it being a combination of factors.

I would say that militant atheism or just ardent non-faith is preferable, as it helps the struggle against superstion and religion, and focuses it to a large exent. But I do not feel the need to require of everybody to be a philosohical atheist. I am happy to see people simply religion-free without even having to think about it. A justly run society and the limeting of religion should do the trick.

[Bluetongue]

Completely pointless. Religion will never go away, no matter what you do. Nor should it - it's a vital part of the human experience. Worry about how people act rather than what they think. Socially progressive religious movements are a good thing. Really, Ayn Rand was a militant atheist - would you rather have her or a Christian Socialist?

[Bud Struggle]

Amid all the definitions proposed for man the most truthful would in fact be that he is the religious animal.--William Barrett

There are spiritual religions like Christianity and Buddism and there are secular religions like Enviormentalism and Communism. People just need to believe in something. Replacing religion with Atheism or Communism or anything else is just replacing one belief for another.

People believe.

Check out this Petacostal Revival Meeting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOkSoQapeEM&feature=related

[Demogorgon]

By militant atheism we appear to mean anti-theism here. No it is absolutely not necessary, and indeed is counter productive. Anti-theism takes on many religious characteristics of its own, come to that. The behaviour and beliefs of anti-theists here could certainly fit under a broad definition of religion.

Most people here at least pay lip service to materialism and materialism precludes anti-theism. People believe in the divine because of material reasons. Such material reasons do not include them not being sufficiently ridiculed by rebellious teenagers. No matter how much certain angst-filled people here would like to have it otherwise, history is driven through human interaction and of course class antagonism. It is not the struggle agaisnt religion some people seem to think it is.

People come up with crap about religion being inherently reactionary because it supports capitalism. But that is nonsense, religion simply fits in with whatever is present. Because religious leaders are a privileged group, they don't like change and tend to support the status quo, but that is not the case for the rest of the religious population. Besides religion backed feudalism against capitalism but then adapted to capitalism, similarly it will adapt to socialism. It will loose support over time, better off and fairer societies have less need for religion after all, but it will be a natural process that can only be impeded rather than helped by childish anti-theism. People need to learn to live and le live when it comes to religious matters.

[al8]

Anything can "fit under a broad definition of religion". But playing that lose with words is an obfuscation and a misuse of language.
This is also a common insult, made most oftenly applied by religious people (strangely enough). That is to call the non-religious religious.

Our approach and suggestions are not not as simple or as few as you state. Neither do we base our views on teenage rebellion, angst, childishness or other steriotypical cliché you might think fun to throw at us.

Your pandering to religion however is poison. And you in no way want it to go away. Hence your bad and useless advice on how to counter it. Wanting to use religions hold on people -- to strike a deal with the clergy -- is profoundly dishonest and contrary to human emancipation.

[al8]

Amid all the definitions proposed for man the most truthful would in fact be that he is the religious animal.--William Barrett

There are spiritual religions like Christianity and Buddism and there are secular religions like Enviormentalism and Communism. People just need to believe in something. Replacing religion with Atheism or Communism or anything else is just replacing one belief for another.

People believe.


Well then, how do you explain atheists?

[Fraushai]

What a silly question. Of course it is. Religion won't go away if we simply ignore it.

My intention was to elicit a debate on the role of religion in paradoxic world that we live in, a world in which the only economically leftist regimes are run by religious socialists (as in Venezuela, and more recently Paraguay, to name but a few).

What Marxism/Socialism entails varies from person to person, and socialists have different emphases. I, however, believe that the struggle for greater economic equality should be the primary goal among all socialists. On that basis, I contend that compromises should be made on this issue in order to pursue our agenda. It is unhelpful to lambaste those who might be of help to a greater scheme of things. This is not to say that criticisms on religion cannot be made, but, they should not be articulated in militant manner, which will, unfortunately, lead to antipathy from religious individuals who may share some of our goals.

[chimx]

"I desired there to be less trifling with the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people." -marx

[Fraushai]

"I desired there to be less trifling with the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people." -marx

Marx also asserted a scientific inevitability of revolution in the industrial society, but now we are in the post-industrial age, it still has yet happened.

The world has changed in a way that Marx had not been able to envision. This reminds us of the importance of versatility, adn the danger of fundamentalism. This is not to say that Marxist atheism is no longer valid, rather, that its articulation needs improvement. That is why I asked if militancy is relevant in our age, vis-a-vis the recent happenings in South America.

[Module]

I disagree. Under certain circumastances, where a church or denomination is directly calling for violence against innocent people, yes, we need to fight that with force if necessary. However, in terms of purely ideological difference, it is not only unfair, but irrational to be militant against the religious, or even the institutions. We must dissolve the church by rationality, rather than violence.
Militant atheism doesn't refer to atheists who plan to use violence against your every day religious person.

Regardless, those who perpetrate religious ideas should be combated, for reasons already stated; I highly doubt religion will go away by itself.
Rationally, but as always, 'violence' is a tactic that may be necessary in some situations.

Might I add that violence doesn't just refer to physical violence, and intellectual violence is inflicted upon 'innocent people' by religion, and religious institutions.
And I hardly think it's 'or even' the institutions. It should be especially the institutions!

[Bud Struggle]

Well then, how do you explain atheists?

You traded one belief (religion) for another (Communism--and all the "science" that goes along with it.) Watch the Youtube of those Communist and you'll see a Pentacostal tent revival meeting.

You trade your belief in God for all the hocus-pocus of the "inevitablilty" of Communism. It's just religion, by other means.

[RedAnarchist]

You traded one belief (religion) for another (Communism--and all the "science" that goes along with it.) Watch the Youtube of those Communist and you'll see a Pentacostal tent revival meeting.

You trade your belief in God for all the hocus-pocus of the "inevitablilty" of Communism. It's just religion, by other means.

Who is the "god of Communism" then?

[Bud Struggle]

Who is the "god of Communism" then?

One could make a case for "the worker," but that's not my point. Even if there was a "God" all the religions out there except one (the one that guessed right) would be wrong. What makes a religion isn't the existance or non existance of God--it's the belief system. To be an athiest--you have to believe, but as that doesn't go far enough--you find Communism (or something similar).

You have a prophet: Marx. Look at all the posts by Communists saying: "Didn't you read Marx, he says xyz." You believe he's right. Marx speaks of a glorious future when all men will be brothers, just like Jesus.

Listen, I have nothing against it. I'm not militant anything. I just think people have a NEED to believe and all you are doing is trading one system of beliefs for another. What Communism is doing is competing in the world of religion for the hearts and mind of people. Currently it's missing something--that's why it's not getting to far--but figure out what that missing thing is and you will have a winner.

Personally, I think the answer might be Christian Marxist, it offers the best of both worlds, but I could see your problem with that. That's looking at Communism from a Capitalist marketing perspective--which might not be a bad idea.

[Demogorgon]

Anything can "fit under a broad definition of religion". But playing that lose with words is an obfuscation and a misuse of language.
This is also a common insult, made most oftenly applied by religious people (strangely enough). That is to call the non-religious religious.

Our approach and suggestions are not not as simple or as few as you state. Neither do we base our views on teenage rebellion, angst, childishness or other steriotypical cliché you might think fun to throw at us.

Your pandering to religion however is poison. And you in no way want it to go away. Hence your bad and useless advice on how to counter it. Wanting to use religions hold on people -- to strike a deal with the clergy -- is profoundly dishonest and contrary to human emancipation.
No, anti-theism does fall nicely into the category of religion because it holds religious belief, ideas essentially, as being an important defining aspect of a person and holds mere ideas are capable of defining a person.

And no, I don't particularly want to get rid of religion. It is a sick definition of emancipation that holds that freeing people involves curtaining their freedom of belief, expression or association. Religion is ultimately a neutral force in the world that can through its lot in with both good and bad movements. Opposing it really is nothing more than an attempt to offend.

[Kami]

No, anti-theism does fall nicely into the category of religion because it holds religious belief, ideas essentially, as being an important defining aspect of a person and holds mere ideas are capable of defining a person.
No, no it doesn't. holding an attitude on religion is not the same as having a religion.

[al8]

No, anti-theism does fall nicely into the category of religion...

As much as baldness falls nicely into the category of a haircolor.


...because it holds religious belief, ideas essentially, as being an important defining aspect of a person and holds mere ideas are capable of defining a person.

That we define ourselves either anti-theist, non-religious, atheists or whatever does not bind us to categorize people in as rigid a ways as you decribe. And I can't understand why it would.

Religion is always bad and is not a neutral force. Your just ignoring what they are and do because you just don't care. Even if the clergy has changed masters they where always the people on the brake, those part of the problem not the solution. And I do not view coopting the oppresive control mechanism of the clergy for socialistic purposes a sign or even as being conductive to the emancipation of humans. Its down right dishonest, opertunistic and manipulative.

[Demogorgon]

As much as baldness falls nicely into the category of a haircolor.



That we define ourselves either anti-theist, non-religious, atheists or whatever does not bind us to categorize people in as rigid a ways as you decribe. And I can't understand why it would.

Religion is always bad and is not a neutral force. Your just ignoring what they are and do because you just don't care. Even if the clergy has changed masters they where always the people on the brake, those part of the problem not the solution. And I do not view coopting the oppresive control mechanism of the clergy for socialistic purposes a sign or even as being conductive to the emancipation of humans. Its down right dishonest, opertunistic and manipulative.
Anti-theism is a thought process that works the same way as religion and suffers from the same flaws. I am an atheist personally and find that it is incompatible with anti-theism.

Saying religion is always bad is nothing but blind prejudice and ignorance. There are countless examples of it doing obvious good. To say otherwise simply reflects an authoritarian desire to control people's beliefs.

[Kami]

Saying religion is always bad is nothing but blind prejudice and ignorance. There are countless examples of it doing obvious good. To say otherwise simply reflects an authoritarian desire to control people's beliefs.
You knocked over that strawman rather nicely

[al8]

There are countless examples of it doing obvious good.

Like what?

[Demogorgon]

Like what?

Liberation Theology

All forms of religious socialism for that matter

The Bhuddist Monks in burma who are the only group there willing and capable to provide assistance to those who need it and who also stand up strongly against the Government and so on and so forth

[Dean]

Militant atheism doesn't refer to atheists who plan to use violence against your every day religious person.

Regardless, those who perpetrate religious ideas should be combated, for reasons already stated; I highly doubt religion will go away by itself.
Rationally, but as always, 'violence' is a tactic that may be necessary in some situations.

Might I add that violence doesn't just refer to physical violence, and intellectual violence is inflicted upon 'innocent people' by religion, and religious institutions.
And I hardly think it's 'or even' the institutions. It should be especially the institutions!

Since when does militancy not indicate violence?

Even if it just refers to an intellecual targetting of religion, I disagree. The economic and alienationg social conditions are far more pressing.

[Bluetongue]

Militant atheism has a lot to do with insecurity. Newly out homosexual go through a similar phase when they seem compelled to assert their sexuality openly and even challenge others. With time and wisdom, this passes. This phenomenon is much rarer in open societies where repression of variant belief systems and life styles is openly embraced.

[Dejavu]

Communists are not atheists. They are anti-theists. Communism is just as irrational as organized religion.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-just-irrational-t78182/index.html

[Dejavu]

Anti-theism is a thought process that works the same way as religion and suffers from the same flaws. I am an atheist personally and find that it is incompatible with anti-theism.

Saying religion is always bad is nothing but blind prejudice and ignorance. There are countless examples of it doing obvious good. To say otherwise simply reflects an authoritarian desire to control people's beliefs.

Agreed. Some religion-based groups have formed charities and hospitals which have helped people. Even certain theist figures in the past have promoted individual liberty. Theres really nothing wrong with believing in whatever god you want. That is personal and one may choose to hold a belief that is irrational.

The problem comes with the indoctrination of children and limited experience or no experience of exploring alternative metaphysical theories. Probably the most unsettling problem is the inherent dichotomy of morality and ethics in religions.
Claiming god exists with absolute certainty obligates you to prove this is the case. It doesn't obligate the atheist to disprove you by raising the question. 'Faith' is the alternative to logical reasoning and denial of proof (empirical testing) and can have some pretty dangerous results. Making the proposition god exists while not being able to prove it and then deriving 'objective truth' from that , especially regarding morality, is very dangerous indeed.

[Dystisis]

Anti-theism is a thought process that works the same way as religion and suffers from the same flaws. I am an atheist personally and find that it is incompatible with anti-theism.

Saying religion is always bad is nothing but blind prejudice and ignorance. There are countless examples of it doing obvious good. To say otherwise simply reflects an authoritarian desire to control people's beliefs.

I agree, anti-theism is bullshit.

However, I am against organized religion because of it's methods to spread it's message of ignorance (usually).

Having personal beliefs is ok. After going through a secular education people should be allowed to think what the fuck they want. I think there are a lot more ignorant people who dismiss philosophy and/or spirituality out of not giving it a thought or caring than there are otherwise.

[Comrade Krell]

Is religion always a reactionary force, is it always on the side of the exploiters? Well it would be nice to think that's not always the case, but it would also be very naive. As a Communist I base myself on the rich historical experience of organized labor, and in that history religion has always opposed social progress and always has sided with the exploiters against the workers.

Religion, just as nationalism, is nothing but an arm of the bourgeois state which is used to trick workers into not fighting for liberation from bourgeois tyranny.

As such, I support treating the followers of religion as no different from any class enemy.

[Module]

Since when does militancy not indicate violence?

Even if it just refers to an intellecual targetting of religion, I disagree. The economic and alienationg social conditions are far more pressing.
As far as I am aware, militancy in this case is used as opposed to 'tolerant' atheism. That is;
mil-i-tant
–adjective 1.vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.

Regardless, as I said, militant atheists, at least around here, are not going to initiate violence on your average religious person, and violence against institutions serves the same purpose as, say, violence against other governmental institutions. Religion isn't going to go away by itself, and violence may be necessary to ensure it does.

You can form a hierarchy of issues of importance, if you'd like. We're communists on this forum, clearly, and capitalism is at the top of our lists, regardless. That doesn't mean that other issues, such as racism, sexism, and religion have no importance. Obviously they do. Such things are oppressive social forces that, as communists, we should be fighting against.

[Killfacer]

Militant Atheism is not violent. Its simply ideologically aggressive atheists such as Richard Dawkins or AC Grayling. The more ridiculous thing is the name. For an atheist to be militant they have to write a bloody book, for a muslim to be militant they have to blow something up.

[Peacekeeper]

Militant Atheism is not violent. Its simply ideologically aggressive atheists such as Richard Dawkins or AC Grayling. The more ridiculous thing is the name. For an atheist to be militant they have to write a bloody book, for a Muslim to be militant they have to blow something up.

Preferably something Israeli or American.

[Dros]

What a silly question. Of course it is. Religion won't go away if we simply ignore it.

This.

[Dean]

As far as I am aware, militancy in this case is used as opposed to 'tolerant' atheism. That is;
mil-i-tant
–adjective 1.vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.

Regardless, as I said, militant atheists, at least around here, are not going to initiate violence on your average religious person, and violence against institutions serves the same purpose as, say, violence against other governmental institutions. Religion isn't going to go away by itself, and violence may be necessary to ensure it does.

You can form a hierarchy of issues of importance, if you'd like. We're communists on this forum, clearly, and capitalism is at the top of our lists, regardless. That doesn't mean that other issues, such as racism, sexism, and religion have no importance. Obviously they do. Such things are oppressive social forces that, as communists, we should be fighting against.


The problem is that religion is a vague incarnation of certian supernaturalist belief structures, which has widely different manifestations in different cultures. If I militantly oppose this, I'm wasting my time. As communists, we should focus on the dangerous trends in religion, but focusing ont eh beliefs themselves implies that we are opposed to the more peaceful, even off-handed belief in God as a fundamental issue. This isn't the case. Communism is about changing the social and economic structure of society. Some things are important to this, i.e. our stance on capital punishment, or the vanguard. But individual beliefs take such a low priority, and yet people here focus on it like its a major tenet of Marxism. And it just isn't important.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Why should rational people sit idly by and allow ancient myths to irreversibly colour the next generation's ability to make moral judgements when they could step in and separate the bullshit from the easily bullshat? (I hope bullshat is a word.)

In a world of fundamentalist militant theism the rational response is a militant (and dare I say it "fundamental") atheism to appose it if required. While the irrational should be educated and reasoned with, the ignorant should be dragged kicking and screaming into the light of reality if nessarcary. This is simply not enough to dismantle an engine of ignorance, one must remove the one thing that allows it to exist: the gullible innocent at it's base and the covetous slavemaster at it's pinnacle.

Now most radical churches in the west nowadays like to hide behind comfortable right-wing principles that remind the so-inclined of "the good old days, when things where wonderful and certain kinds of people weren't allowed on golf courses." In other words the world of grinding poverty, blinding ignorance and mainstream institutionalised racism and sexism in which the mindset of the mouth-breathing bible-humping lyching wifebeating cross-whooping loon was accepted or more incredibly, was acceptable.

In the face of such a comfortable and welcoming facade the ignorant, the uneducated and the prejudiced flock into the arms of delusion.

With such opposition how can quiet refusal to believe possibly help the many thousands of innocent children who are inflicted by their loving parents with willful falsehood.

To say that religion is not always a bad thing is to ignore the bad aspects of the single most damaging influence in the history of madkind. It's like ignoring all the injustices of capitalism because during it's sway we have invented aspirin.

People simply do not need to be motivated by bimillenial lies to be pleasant to each other.