What kind of atheist are you?

Atheism and opposition to religion are prequisites for membership of this group. Thus, when the Religion forum God-poll asks whether you believe in 'god(s)', this one inquires how you, as an atheist, approach the concepts of religion and superstition. Are you a militant atheist, or do you think we should work against religion and promote atheism in a more tolerant fashion in a post-capitalist society? Also, please elaborate on your choice.

***

I am a militant atheist myself, and believe that the elimination of religion as a concept would be in the interests of all mankind. Only when no single individual is deluded by superstition and belief in unprovable assertions -- nor enslaved by illogical moral codes -- anymore, can everyone take part in the administration of society on equal terms.

Before that, there can not be a fully equal society, nor can any human being lacking a rational mindset be truly free. Therefore we must fight for the right of every child to develop one, and forbid both so called faith schools and other attempts to teach children religion or religious values.

Religious people should not be persecuted, but religion itself is to be actively suppressed. Organised religion is not to be tolerated. Religious faith is to be actively discouraged, and denied all publicity. Religious buidings such as churches, mosques, temples and cathedrals are to be torn down.

Note, that as an anarchist I am obviously not arguing for any kind of central authority to implement the above order -- I hope that it will be enforced democratically in a future communistic society.

Slight edit to avoid confusion on group guidelines - Sentinel

I am strongly against religion for reasons you've already alluded to - it is intellectually, emotionally restrictive, and potentially very harmful to the individual, and on a larger scale to society etc. etc.
It is my personal belief that no resources should be put into religious institutions, and religious education I think is something that just cannot be tolerated. I think that religious ideas are those that should be actively combated, the same as racism, and so on.

However, despite these personal beliefs, if the people as a whole want religious buildings, and organised religion, like what you said, nobody has any real right to deny them that - but I think it is the 'duty' of us 'rational' members of society to actively combat these ideas.

The issue of teaching religious ideas to children I think is a different matter, though. I don't think that parents should have exclusive rights over the education of their child, obviously, and I think measures should be taken to make sure that these children are allowed to develop their sense of rationality, tolerance and individuality, regardless of what religion their parents seek to bring them up in.

And, on the poll I voted 'militant atheist'.

Militant.

Pin please.

militant though i am willing to tolerate religious believes held by a person as long as he/she does not preach or raise his/her children to be religious.

organized religion should be crushed and churches(or whatever they are called by other religions) demolished.

maybe our offspring would condemn the destruction of historical sites but tough shit for them.

I'm a Marxist, and therefore tolerant for reasons stated already by Marx.

I'm a Marxist, and therefore tolerant for reasons stated already by Marx.

You vote for that, we Marxists without the crap will vote militant.

The role of the superstitious was not insignificant in the counterrevolutions that occurred in the socialist bloc, and we should try to learn from that. As long as religious institutions exist, they'll tirelessly work for the reinstatement of the old order -- for the reaction, against the revolution. No reason for the people who realise this to tolerate shit like that.

However, militant atheists should obviously act differently in different countries. We can for example safely assume that religion will remain a powerful force in the US for a long time to come. Therefore it might be rash to push for the complete eradication of religion immediately there, while in a country like Sweden -- where 80% state that they don't believe in God -- the prospect of success would be much greater.

I'd thus recommend just getting rid of religious education -- and instead granting all children a secular one, and teaching them about the concept of religion from an atheist pov -- as a good first step for regions like the US.

Protect the kids from religious influences both at school and elsewhere -- then in a generation or so, when the odds will be better, bring forth the wrecking balls.

I recommend this essay by redstar2000 as reading for all group members: The Cathedral and the Wrecking Ball

Militant atheist. In spite of this, religion has been around for thousands of years and I am under no illusions that getting rid of it will be quick or easy. The first step is to challenge religious claims at every opportunity, and encourage worlwide secular education, especially for women. I also think that homeschooling should be banned - it is merely an excuse for parent to fill their childs' heads with any rubbish that takes their fancy.

And as Sentinel says, maybe in a generation or two we can bring out the wrecking balls. Perhaps there may not be a need to - the "despiritualisation" of human society could be such a gradual process that by the time the whole of human society is atheist, the religions popular today could be as dead as that of the Greek or Egyptian gods.

I also think that homeschooling should be banned - it is merely an excuse for parent to fill their childs' heads with any rubbish that takes their fancy.

I vehemently agree. In a communist society the children should cease to be the 'property' of their parents, and the community should take joint responsibility for their education and wellbeing.

For example, teaching your kids that 'God made earth in 7 days and hates homosexuals' could very well be deemed as child abuse, and result in a re-evaluation of parenting rights.

militant though i am willing to tolerate religious believes held by a person as long as he/she does not preach or raise his/her children to be religious.

organized religion should be crushed and churches(or whatever they are called by other religions) demolished.

maybe our offspring would condemn the destruction of historical sites but tough shit for them.

one disagreement. can't religious buildings be used for other purposes? it's seems a shame to destroy such beautiful buildings. after all it's the clergy and the church we're pissed at, not the bricks and mortar that made up their office.

it's seems a shame to destroy such beautiful buildings. after all it's the clergy and the church we're pissed at, not the bricks and mortar that made up their office.

Blackflagrevolutionary, I think redstar2000 addresses that point pretty well in the essay I linked to:

What is the purpose of a church or other "holy building"?

It's not needed for "worship"...early Christians had no churches at all.

No, what it's for is propaganda in stone...it's an "in your face" declaration of the "power and prestige" of superstitious bullshit.

Cathedrals were built to "awe" people into belief--and as long as they stand, they continue to serve that function. As I said above, they are "propaganda in stone".

Rid the landscape of them and religion is instantly deprived of one of its major weapons...the gross physical evidence of its "significance".

As long as the religious buildings exist, they will fill this propaganda purpose.

I'm a fairly militant athiest and I've been awed by the architecture of the cathedrals of France and Italy. if you were to use such buildings for storage or convert the into accomodation for the homeless minus the religious paintings etc. the whole need to tear them down would be gone.

the fact is that stripped of religious art work and religious latin scripture, there is a cool looking building just begging to be used after the revolution.

It's a fair point you are making, but the cold, hard evidence of history would suggest that it didn't work. They tried to keep the religious buildings for other purposes in the USSR -- they converted many churches into museums over the crimes of religion. They did the same thing in France, by converting them into 'Temples of Reason'.

But religion survived, and now they are used for the purpose of sedating the masses again. The christians, on the other hand, when they acquired state power in the Roman Empire, acted differently. They forbad all public expressions of the old religion, and in a couple of generations it was gone.

Why not use their own method against them? It's been shown to work!

but the thing is, if we destroy the scriptures and teachings, remove the crosses and all the religious symbolisms, the people won't know what to worship.

but the thing is, if we destroy the scriptures and teachings, remove the crosses and all the religious symbolisms, the people won't know what to worship.

That's the whole point..? To end the age of 'worship' and 'faith', and introduce the masses to the discourse of critical, scientific evaluation. Because science will be there, to offer explanations when possible and plausible theories when there is uncertainty -- it will render faith superfluous.

Many, perhaps most, people turn to religion because they are afraid of death. Our message to them must be: religion can never save your lives, but science can!

Because, mankind will conquer unvoluntary death with the help of science -- unless the religious succeed in hindering us..

Blackflagrevolutionary, I think redstar2000 addresses that point pretty well in the essay I linked to:


As long as the religious buildings exist, they will fill this propaganda purpose.

Another point redstar made was (I'm paraphrasing) The poor gave their pentance to build those fantasitc structures while they starved and the priests had their bellies full.

Another point redstar made was (I'm paraphrasing) The poor gave their pentance to build those fantasitc structures while they starved and the priests had their bellies full.

OK, but he clearly advocates their destruction, right?

OK, but he clearly advocates their destruction, right?

Hes never advocated anything but their destruction, stating that as one of the reasons why.

We don't worship Zeus in Greek temples, and we don't sacrifice virgins at stonehenge - why would we pray at churches if the religion was eradicated?

We don't worship Zeus in Greek temples, and we don't sacrifice virgins at stonehenge - why would we pray at churches if the religion was eradicated?

Because the Greek temples and Stonehenge are so rare, while there is a church at every corner -- and because these ancient temples are partially destroyed, only ruins remain.

That's why and how the christians managed to accomplish their domination, and the destruction of paganism.

I say we should follow their example: Promote science 'all over the place', and suppress religion by denying it publicity and magnificent buidings.

I can't really vote because I'm behind the idea that Socialism would secularize society over time. As Marx did theorize, religion, or perhaps the fact the proletariat follows it, is a product of alienated material conditions. Especially in a Technocratic setting, such as I and many in this group envision - religion would be indirectly demoted in the ranks of society in terms of importance. I guess this generally puts me in the "Tolerant" category, but I definitely support religion disappearing from society - I also have supported on these boards suppressing, selectively, religious institutions that show to be a threat to class struggle.

You vote for that, we Marxists without the crap will vote militant.

For Marxists, religion is a product of class alienation. As a symptom of society it is oppressed people's means of dealing with that alienation. If the advocacy of religious destruction occurs before the success of class struggle, you are going to cause further social alienation in working peoples (and consequently receive quite a reaction in most people).

For Marxists, religion is a product of class alienation. As a symptom of society it is oppressed people's means of dealing with that alienation. If the advocacy of religious destruction occurs before the success of class struggle, you are going to cause further social alienation in working peoples (and consequently receive quite a reaction in most people).

I already explained that I agree with that, and therefore advocate a more careful appoach in predominantly religious regions. The Wrecking Balls can't be brought forth before a majority of the population supports such a measure.

Advocacy of the destruction of religion should however be allowed to occur much before it's actual implementation..

It's "allowed" whenever you want. It is just going to have a negative reaction if it comes before class struggle.

It's "allowed" whenever you want. It is just going to have a negative reaction if it comes before class struggle.

A negative reaction towards what, revolutionary thought? You can't be serious. So the reason people don't rise up against wage slavery and inequality is because those who propose it have too radical and/or unpopular ideas?

Nope, man, the reason communism isn't more popular ATM is that capitalism is so powerful. If this wasn't so, it would not matter if some communists advocate the destruction of religion, or anything else in particular.

The people would just have the kind of revolution they wanted to!

Now in my opinion -- no matter what happens -- the critical voice utterly condemning religion from communists is necessary. Communists should do this, because we must be the ones people can always expect the truth from.

Turning a blind eye to the misanthropic nature of religious thought -- and failing to point it out -- would make the future generations condemn us as elitists hijackers of the revolution, who happily let the masses wallow in ignorance when we could have acted.

Kind of like the bolsheviks -- 'only the vanguard needs to be atheist'..

I don't want that.

Knowing the truth, always telling it, and actively spreading it to others -- like beacons of truth in the dark sea of lies! -- is our responsibility, and I think that is what Marx really meant with communists as the 'vanguard of the proletariat'.

Religion is a product of class alienation: true, and that is why it must be fought even harder! It is a disadvantageous product of class alienation, one that encourages irrationality, submission to irrational and hierarchical authority and identification with class, and hence political, enemies. It is weakened now, largely abandoned by many states apart from times when patriotism (and through that the state religion, as we can see in the UK recently with 'Britishness', faith schools and a resurgence of interest in the state-sanctioned clergy on the part of the media) is encouraged more than normally, and so hides behind the liberalism that, all those years ago, was its most powerful political enemy (anyone remember the Cult of Reason?).

It may be weakened, but its decline seems to be slowing as it makes its last stand, and in the short time it might become stronger. It still has a bad effect, and for that it should be vehemently opposed, at the very least in its organised, hierarchical, forms. It still retards progress, particularly in biology, and those near the top of the religious hierarchy can still exert considerable political power (through denouncing certain things as unholy or immoral), much more than the Communists can, in the feeble state we are in.

Organised religion is a vile cancer that both feeds off and sedates some of the lowest in society and is funded and supported by many of those near the top. It must be destroyed as a significant affector on human thought.

Of course it would have to be a popular measure you cant force i down peoples throats. Revolution will not be possible without widespread atheism.

Of course it would have to be a popular measure you cant force i down peoples throats. Revolution will not be possible without widespread atheism.

I think it is the other way around myself: widespread atheism will not be possible without revolution.

I think it is the other way around myself: widespread atheism will not be possible without revolution.

atheism is rapidly becoming the norm in western europe and yet revolution is not yet in sight.

i agree with redstar as atheism becomes the majority standpoint people will think much more about improving their lives on earth instead of being concerned with scoring points for the afterlife.
and having a parasitic upperclass of 2-3% of the population possessing over 80% of the wealth while the majority struggle to pay the bills and eat 2 real meals a day would definitely make communism a lot more attractive.