What kind of atheist are you?

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

In other words, imperialist countries living in relative affluence. Is atheism as strong in super-exploited colonial states?

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.

When people say things like this it is telling of how out of touch they are to religious institutions today. "Pie in the sky" rhetoric was a lot more prominent a hundred years ago and before, but most religious leaders today talk a great deal about improving the quality of lives of people on earth right here right now.

but most religious leaders today talk a great deal about improving the quality of lives of people on earth right here right now.

Yeah, that's all they ever do: Talk. This reminds me of a scene in the John Lee Anderson Guevara biography, where Che said that he 'had not forgot', that some guy 'had talked about revolution already when I was a kid'. The sucker took it as a compliment, when Che actually criticised him because he had not acted.

***

You don't actually think that organised religion is a progressive force today, do you chimx?

In other words, imperialist countries living in relative affluence. Is atheism as strong in super-exploited colonial states?



When people say things like this it is telling of how out of touch they are to religious institutions today. "Pie in the sky" rhetoric was a lot more prominent a hundred years ago and before, but most religious leaders today talk a great deal about improving the quality of lives of people on earth right here right now.

I agree with you on this point, Chimx. Liberation theology is socialism with Jesus. But the defining point is, do they put their faith in someone or something that cant be prove? ANd they have to answer, yes. Thats the problem.

Liberation theology is socialism with Jesus

Well maybe, but is it real socialism anymore then? With all the 'necessary' compromises on social issues? friend of mine put it well: Trying to mix Jesus into socialism is like trying to force in a square formed object through a triangular hole. It might go with force, but neither will remain what they were..

Communism is the destruction of class by reshaping societies productive forces. I don't see how that is inherently antithetical to religion.

Religion is not part of societies productive forces, but is merely part of societies superstructure.

In your brief definition of Communism you ignore the social "libertarianism" Communism proposes - it is indeed not only the destruction of class, but the eventual destruction of State. The prospects of religion are inherent and extremely hierarchal. Especially with the Anarchist state of mind, not bowing down to the bourgeoisie, but bowing down to the "big man in the sky", one that supposedly controls the entire universe, and, at that, the "big man in the sky" so long used to exploit proletarians. Your logic is flawed here.

Further, you add this:

Religion is not part of societies productive forces, but is merely part of societies superstructure.

Communism is the destruction of bourgeois superstructure - I imagine that society will be largely rearranged in terms of 'superstructure'. Further, religion is only a part of the superstructure so long this superstructure is bourgeois.

Your logic is flawed here.

No, I just don't care much about anarchism. Contemporary anarchism's obsession with authority and coercion had been a contributing factor in its downward path towards irrelevance.

Communism is the destruction of bourgeois superstructure - I imagine that society will be largely rearranged in terms of 'superstructure'. Further, religion is only a part of the superstructure so long this superstructure is bourgeois.

Political superstructures exist to facilitate production relationships. When employees come into broad conflict with employers and this relationship, they no doubt come into conflict with aspects of this superstructure which seeks to perpetuate the ruling classes hegemonic dominance.

But sectors within this superstructure are allowed certain degrees of autonomy from the values of the dominant class. In fact, areas within superstructure can be at times in conflict with the dominant class.

And excellent example of this is in the French Revolution. While Bishops and the landed aristocracy fought vehemently to deny the 3rd estate participation within the political structure, parish priests broke from the church leaders and fought with the rising bourgeoisie. As we witnessed the shift from one historical epoch to another, so we also witnessed the shift of the political superstructure.

Although I think it is improper to speculate in excess, this will no doubt be equally applicable with any future class conflicts. As workers obtain greater social dominance through successful class struggle, the bourgeois superstructure will necessarily shift to meet the needs of the new dominant class.

If Marx was right, and religion is a byproduct of social alienation, than it is only after capitalism has been dismantled that you will see a decline in religion since it ceases to be a social necessity. This is equally true of the "state" (as Marx defined it).

Chimx, two of my questions in this thread are still unanswered.

1) Do you consider organised religion a progressive force, which leftists should support, in society? Are you against opposing it? What should be our position on, say the catholic church?

2) Also, do you think the kind of socialism liberation theologists etc. advocate can still be seen as socialism at all, considering that it's unequal, due to it's compromises on social issues -- no to abortion, no to gay marriage & adoption etc? What should our position be on these people?

Do you consider organised religion a progressive force, which leftists should support, in society? Are you against opposing it? What should be our position on, say the catholic church?

Religion can and have been a progressive force if we are defining progressive in terms of advancing the interests of workers. The destruction of apartheid in South Africa, liberation theology in South America, the advocacy of religious equality and free speech all over the world.

Leftists should support any movement which advances the material interests of working peoples. This is different of course than from supporting the organization. For example, there are Jewish groups opposed to Zionism, but one doesn't necessarily have to support the groups to support their cause. I imagine that is a personal decision people have to make depending on their own spiritual beliefs.

2) Also, do you think the kind of socialism liberation theologists etc. advocate can still be seen as socialism at all, considering that it's unequal, due to it's compromises on social issues -- no to abortion, no to gay marriage & adoption etc? What should our position be on these people?

Yes of course. There is a necessary distinction between exploitation and oppression. One can still be an advocate of a socialized economy and still act coercively to a sector of the population. This isn't good, but its still socialism. The road your traveling down with this question is one of sectarianism and has been something isolating leftists for decades, from other leftist organizations as well as working peoples.

chimx sometimes sectarianism is not a bad thing especially not when dealing with "socialists" that think religion is acceptable.

sometimes sectarianism looks like petty squabbling and totally irrelevant and sometimes it actually is just that but there are issues worth fighting over and the position of religion in post-capitalist society is something i consider very important.

religion is not harmless and has always been a tool for population control that alone should be reason enough to smash it.

its strange that you dont seem to see that religion has always been a force of reaction and a true cancer of society.

I have already illustrated that this isn't true using historical examples.

i could site countless historical examples of how capitalism has been progressive but that does not mean that it still is today.

religion is way past its best-before date and we should really get rid of it before it really starts stinking up the place.

But your defense of organised religion as progressive

I said it can be progressive and has been progressive at times. It has probably done more fucked up shit than good in our life times. But I also don't think religion is some evil monster that turns people into mindless drones. The fucked up shit that people do is reflective of cultural contradictions that are already existent in society.

and opposition to the promotion of atheism is

I will engage people in mature discussion on religion, but I'm not going to become some sort of evangelic. I find that offensive enough when Christians do it. Best that I don't stoop to their level.

(actually irl that's not necessarily true. I often act anti-theistically when I'm pissed at work and talk about my desire to have God manifest in front of me so I punch Him in the head, rip out His eyeballs and poke my wiener into His skull. But I'm not looking for converts in that kind of situation.)

But the very values this group was formed to represent aren't meant to disputed inside it

Other than my tolerance for the reality that the vast majority of the world is religious, and my comfort with this fact, I have not disputed anything.

The fucked up shit that people do is reflective of cultural contradictions that are already existent in society.

very true but i fail to understand why we should accept religion just because there are worse things out there.

I will engage people in mature discussion on religion, but I'm not going to become some sort of evangelic. I find that offensive enough when Christians do it.

acceptable position but then why are you bothering to defend religion ?

Best that I don't stoop to their level.

the 1 sentence i hate the most because it has no practical use to be "morally superior"
who gives a damn what "level" you are currently in anyway ? nobody is keeping track of it.
perhaps its a character flaw that i have no problem getting agressive when i am being preached.


i feel the need to explain my hatred for religion.
a family member was molested as a child by a now dead grandfather.
he was deeply religious yet never bothered to apologize (or other ways of making things right) because it was something between him and god.
fortunately for him he died before i found out otherwise he surely would have died after i found out.

also i went to a religious school and we all know they produce the best atheists.

acceptable position but then why are you bothering to defend religion ?

Because I was repeatedly asked to.

I think atheism is a prerequisite to the revolution we would want...or at least a prerequisite that would limit the impact of counter-revolution from the religious that is to be usually expected in their track record (i.e. Spanish Civil War, etc.).

The more we challenge the pillars of the right and of class society ideologically the less problems we would likely run into in the case of revolution (since their supporters would decrease/less ideological power for these opposing views.). Usually if this is not thoroughly confronted and discredited "in the world of ideas" all I see in history is that a very bloody civil war would ensue as long as those opposing ideas have large amount of support.

Also the more worn down a society's superstructure is the more ripe it is for a social revolution; especially if coupled with material conditions (i.e. "capitalism failing"-economic crashes and such. Also imperialist wars, especially losing ones.). Thus I see it as imperative to criticize, to wear down, every ideological aspect that supports class society.

While Western Europe could be considered virtually atheist even if some people pay lip service to religion by stating they're from so-and-so religion yet don't practice and thus the need for spreading atheism as a "prerequisite for religion" or to make the impact of civil war smaller by limiting the other side's ideological supporters beforehand is small this does not apply to the U.S. So this actually depends geographically; militant atheism is more necessary in the U.S. than most parts of Europe.

I don't deny that religion has made small progress in some cases but the majority of evidence points to religion supporting atrocities, racism, etc. (While some abolitionists were "divinely inspired" there were also slavery supporters who used religion to support slavery. Same with apartheid. Also religious freedom/free speech/etc comes from liberalism not religion, those things actually rose during the enlightenment era where things were moving away from religious control due to the great schism,etc.)

Finally, a religious view point is just not a rational one. Why shouldn't we try to help people to get out from ignorance, etc? In this I very much agree with Sentinel:

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'.

I suppose than that I'm militant in mind-set but I actually have "religious friends" (although they're not overtly religious...) and don't do much activities to spread atheism.

I voted militant. But I think in a socialist technocracy the necessity of religious superstition as a coping mechanism will whither away very quickly.

I am somewhere between the two. I am sometimes militant. First and foremost, just so people know - I am an atheist (obviously because I'm a member in this group). I am an atheist who, unlike some people who have posted, believes in humanity and material reality. I do not believe in any concept of "something out there" and the concept of a god or deity to me is merely a load of bullshit with no merit.

I advocate the eradication of organised religion and will fight it's involvement in politics although as of now I don't mind a bit of spirituality as long as people keep it to themselves and do not put up advertisements, etc all over the place the way they do now. They should also keep the fuck out of politics.

In theory I wouldn't be bothered by people practicing apolitical, non-self promotional, decentralised religion. I would still be opposed to it but could easily put up with it.

As far as my friends who have religious views go, I like to debate with them but will not usually try to "convince" them of anything as long as they refrain from advertising their religion and keep it separate from their political views (which arguably is not really possible - I have thought about this from time to time).

I used to be extremely militant but I've found myself becoming more tolerant over the past few years. I think I just realized that religion, on a macroscopic scale at least, is irrelevant. Almost every conceivable thought or ideology has at one point been expressed through religion. It's a completely malleable thing. Just look at the early Russian revolution, the Venezuelan revolution, or countless others. Revolutionary ideals are often conveyed in a religious context. It's not that religion is progressive, it's just that when oppressed people begin to fight back, they often do it through religion, which is the only vehicle they know for expressing their view on the way society should be. As time goes on, they come to realize that it's bullshit and that the religious infrastructure is actually reactionary. It's a gradual process though, you're never going to turn someone into an atheist overnight just by shouting really loud, all that does is antagonize would be allies. Patient explanation is what's needed. It's kind of like collectivization. Obviously, collectivized farms are better than private ones, but going in with tanks and forcing peasants to collectivize when all they want is their own little plot will just turn them against you and accomplish nothing. If you give them what they want but explain to them why collectivization is better, eventually they will realize you're right.

I am a devout athiest.

I am a militant atheist.

*It makes people stupid, ignorant and intolerant.
*It makes people waste their brief spark of consciousness on earth hoping for an unprovable and unlikely "afterlife"
*It makes people accepting of the current system since no matter how bad it is, they can just wait till they die and then live in utopia. They'd rather wait for a utopia in death then set about trying to make one here on earth

However, I don't think we can FULLY 100% get rid of religion until we've got rid of the material conditions which encourage religious belief.

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.

Excluding mental patients, of course.

I feel no reason to attempt to end religion entirely. It's hopeless in the current uneducated state of the common man. It would not be a thing encouraged by the state. Clergymember would not be an accepted job worthy of a wage by the government.

I'm tolerant because I believe that we shouldn't seem superior to the religious, but instead seen to be giving them the facts.

I voted for militant, as I mostly agree with Sentinel, although I don't think that most religious buildings should be demolished immediately.

I voted "tolerant" although I don't agree with the options' premise.

I am for human progress, so obviously I am for humans reaching a level of understanding close (or matching) with that which is actually true of this world. Whether that should turn out to be some form of atheism is unknown at this point. Read: It is obvious that there is not an animated God controlling the universe right now, as the universe follows computable patterns. However, that is not to say we are entirely clear of why (or how) the universe was created (resulting in all that is known -- or unknown -- about the physical world, today).

Anyways, I voted "tolerant" because I am against enforcing beliefs. I believe in reaching a common understanding amongst humanity, not repressing certain beliefs.

With that being said, I am in favor of banning oppressive religious institutions, and organized religion in general.

Edit: As for religious buildings, I could see why we would want to keep some of them. I do not actually think this question is of any importance though. Anyways, I wonder how magnificent buildings we could create using nano-technology...

I like the architecture, and I'm not a Hoxhaist here (I think he's a bastard), but one thing Hoxha did I thought was a good idea was simply to turn the churches into other things such as recreation and social centers and the like.

I like the architecture, and I'm not a Hoxhaist here (I think he's a bastard), but one thing Hoxha did I thought was a good idea was simply to turn the churches into other things such as recreation and social centers and the like.

It's funny you say that because that's exactly what's happening here in Quebec. It's gone from the most religious society in North American to the least, as a result of the improved economic situation for the majority of society and increased education. Nobody goes to church anymore, and we have a glut of them, so they get turned into rec centres, condos, social housing, etc. Hell, my university just bought a nunnery and turned it into a dorm. It's great, if for nothing else than irony's sake. I'll admit, I love the architecture and it would be a definite shame if they were torn down. They really do represent the pinnacle of technological achievement at the time. That ability was directed towards religion because it was dominant, but it really has nothing to do with it.

Religious buidings such as churches, mosques, temples and cathedrals are to be torn down.

I am a "militant" atheist but I am against destroying buildings with cultural value.

It is also counterproductive to make martyrs with violent tactics.