Militant Atheism

Interbane · Mon May 16, 2011 10:16 am

A post from some guy... I don't know who he is. A couple good points.


	Quote: Nine bullets fired from close range ended the life of Salman Taseer last month, making the Pakistani governor the latest high-profile victim of religious violence. Taseer had the audacity to publicly question Pakistan's blasphemy laws, and for this transgression he paid with his life. Taseer joins a list of numerous other high-profile victims of militant religion, such as Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas abortion doctor killed by a devout Christian assassin in 2009, and Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmaker whose provocative movie about Islam resulted in his being brutally murdered in 2004. With this background, it is especially puzzling that the American media and public still perpetuate the cliché of so-called "militant atheism." We hear the disparaging term "militant atheist" used frequently, the unquestioned assumption being that militant atheists are of course roaming the streets of America. In fact, however, while millions of atheists are indeed walking our streets, it would be difficult to find even one who could accurately be described as militant. In all of American history, it is doubtful that any person has ever been killed in the name of atheism. In fact, it would be difficult to find evidence that any American has ever even been harmed in the name of atheism. It just does not happen, because the notion of "militant atheism" is entirely fantasy. When the media and others refer to a "militant atheist," the object of that slander is usually an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God. Conventional wisdom quickly tells us that such conduct is shameful or, at the very least, distasteful, and therefore the brazen atheist is labeled "militant." But this reflects a double standard, because it seems to apply only to atheists. Religious individuals and groups frequently declare, sometimes subtly and sometimes not, that you are a sinner and that you will suffer in hell for eternity if you do not adopt their supernatural beliefs, but they will almost never be labeled "militant" by the media or the public. Instead, such individuals are called "devout" and such churches are called "evangelical." The lesson here is clear. If you're an atheist, shut up about it. If you are open or vocal about your atheist worldview, you are a "militant atheist." Be silent, even though that same standard does not apply to those who passionately disagree with you. This, to be sure, explains why so few Americans openly identify as atheist. The American Religious Identification Survey conducted by Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, indicates that only about 81 percent of Americans affirmatively believe in a god (about 69 percent believe in a personal God, while about 12 percent believe in some kind of "higher power"), meaning about 19 percent do not. Yet despite the fact that almost one in five Americans don't affirmatively believe, only a tiny fraction of those dare to identify openly as atheist. Analyze those numbers all you want, but the inescapable conclusion is that millions of Americans are in the closet about their religious skepticism. This, in turn, only serves to validate and legitimize the religious right, because it suggests that there is something wrong with a secular worldview. By keeping atheists closeted, the religious right can claim the moral high ground and influence public policy more than it should. Therefore, maybe it's time to end the myth of militant atheism?

Randall R. Young · Tue May 17, 2011 11:40 am


	Quote: Therefore, maybe it's time to end the myth of militant atheism?

It seems to me that there are two ways to approach this:

1. Reason all those persons who use the term out of their irrational beliefs, or

2. Make the myth a reality.

Number one strikes me as impossible. How can you reason with those who reject reason?

stahrwe · Tue May 17, 2011 2:37 pm

Do we want to compare numbers of people killed by 'christians' [I used lower case because the identification is questionable] verses atheists?

Atheists
Pol Pott
Joseph Stalin
Mao

I suppose, if you added up the victims of Islam and Christians, you would have only a fraction of one of the above. Yours is a weak argument because it opens the door to an easy response.

johnson1010 · Tue May 17, 2011 3:29 pm

Such nonsense, Stahrwe.

Again. Sigh.

Chuck Ludikee · Tue May 24, 2011 10:55 pm


	stahrwe wrote: Do we want to compare numbers of people killed by 'christians' [I used lower case because the identification is questionable] verses atheists? Atheists Pol Pott Joseph Stalin Mao I suppose, if you added up the victims of Islam and Christians, you would have only a fraction of one of the above. Yours is a weak argument because it opens the door to an easy response.

stahrwe, they didn’t commit their murders because they were defending atheism; they did it because they were evil, murderous dictators. The only orders they were following were their own. The God of Abraham, on the other hand, orders genocide so complete that even the little puppies, kittens, and toddlers are ordered killed. The exact order was, “thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.” (Deuteronomy 20:16) We know that mortal man can be evil, but should the “God of Mercy” be evil?

Dexter · Wed May 25, 2011 3:35 am


	stahrwe wrote: Do we want to compare numbers of people killed by 'christians' [I used lower case because the identification is questionable] verses atheists? Atheists Pol Pott Joseph Stalin Mao

No Hitler? My history is a bit hazy, but I'm pretty sure he went on a killing spree after reading Dawkins.

Robert Tulip · Wed May 25, 2011 6:45 am

Randall R. Young wrote:


	Quote: Therefore, maybe it's time to end the myth of militant atheism?

It seems to me that there are two ways to approach this:
1. Reason all those persons who use the term out of their irrational beliefs, or
2. Make the myth a reality.
Number one strikes me as impossible. How can you reason with those who reject reason?

We had quite a lively discussion on related topics in the thread Coming Out as an Atheist. Here is a comment I made there.


	Robert Tulip wrote: Atheism has at least two main currents that are worth distinguishing. The major historical current arises from socialism, from the view that faith is an instrument of class privilege designed to preserve existing social relations - the king in his castle and the beggar at the gate. Because socialism seeks to invert the social order, it rejects faith on political grounds as a bastion of the status quo. Popular revulsion at the social impact of socialism leads to broader doubt about the merits of atheism. The French Revolution, forebear of socialism, swept to power on an idealistic vision of liberty, equality and fraternity, and enthroned the Goddess of Reason in the Catholic Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. But in a short time, idealism turned to terror, as those who were dispossessed by the new ideals mounted a reaction and the Jacobins enforced their ideals with the guillotine. The secondary atheist current is scientific and liberal. It observes that nothing can be demonstrated to exist outside the scientific method, so, in the words of Laplace, has no need of the hypothesis of God. For science, facts are the highest value. Because they are trained in the laboratory rather than the library, such scientists flounder when they step on to theological terrain. They are fine when refuting the falsity of fundamentalism, but entirely out of their depth when relating to a wiser faith. Sadly, wisdom is rare, and dogmatism is pervasive, so the whole tenor of the debate is somewhat deaf, dumb and blind. The problem shared by both these currents is the source of values. As Dostoyevsky's Karamazov said, without God all things are possible. (note on source). Factual description of the world does not contain within it any normative statement on how we should live. So it is fine for atheists to say they believe nothing, if they accept the corrolary that no one should trust them with moral responsibility. My view on all this is that Christianity contains within it a sound evolutionary natural ethic, but this has been corrupted by supernaturalism. An atheist faith sounds like a paradox, but that is what is needed, and what can be found by stripping Christianity back to its original hidden natural core, before the fantasists and careerists took over. Combining the ethics of the sermon on the mount with scientific focus on evidence and observation and logic seems to me the best way forward. The result is that all the supernatural stories of the Bible are reinterpreted as allegory, so the valid ethic of faith can be rebased in reality.

Your suggestion, Randall, that atheism needs a mythology, appears to be a paradox, given the antinomy of myth and logic. But in this thread on 'militant atheism' it is useful to look at how words have emotional associations deriving from their historical background. Communist Russia had a prominent organisation called "The League of the Militant Godless". The wiki is interesting to read to consider the emotional reactions that 'militant atheism' instils. The point is that if atheists deny their own need for symbols, they will have symbols foisted on them by others, misrepresenting modern liberal atheists by association with the fanatics of Soviet Russia.

stahrwe · Wed May 25, 2011 8:33 am

Dexter wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: Do we want to compare numbers of people killed by 'christians' [I used lower case because the identification is questionable] verses atheists? Atheists Pol Pott Joseph Stalin Mao

No Hitler? My history is a bit hazy, but I'm pretty sure he went on a killing spree after reading Dawkins.

WOW, your history is not Hazy it is, well, I could use an expletive but I won't.

First, Dawkins was not on Hitler's reading list as I don't believe he had published anything yet.

Second, I was listing atheists. Whatever Hitler was, I don't believe he was an atheist. More likely he was an astrotheologist of some kind.

Randall R. Young · Wed May 25, 2011 9:45 am


	Robert Tulip wrote: Your suggestion, Randall, that atheism needs a mythology, appears to be a paradox, given the antinomy of myth and logic.

???
I don't believe I was suggesting that! What I meant was that the world could turn out some actual militant atheists, thereby making the myth into a reality.

Randall R. Young · Wed May 25, 2011 9:53 am


	stahrwe wrote: First, Dawkins was not on Hitler's reading list as I don't believe he had published anything yet. Second, I was listing atheists. Whatever Hitler was, I don't believe he was an atheist. More likely he was an astrotheologist of some kind.

A) I think your sarcasm detector is turned off.

B) It is interesting that you take all these other mass murderers at face value, but not Hitler. Hitler was quite clear about his Christian beliefs. Why don't you believe him? Could it be that you are applying a double standard?

johnson1010 · Wed May 25, 2011 3:21 pm


	Quote: Could it be that you are applying a double standard?

[sarcasm]Who, Stahrwe?

.... NEVER.[/sarcasm]

Robert Tulip · Wed May 25, 2011 4:45 pm

Randall R. Young wrote:


	Robert Tulip wrote: Your suggestion, Randall, that atheism needs a mythology, appears to be a paradox, given the antinomy of myth and logic.

???
I don't believe I was suggesting that! What I meant was that the world could turn out some actual militant atheists, thereby making the myth into a reality.

The world has turned out militant atheists in very large numbers. Russia and China were officially atheist in their communist period. My last post gave some background on the scale and political standing of the league of the militant godless in Russia. Atheism helped to give these revolutions their moral impetus, because the mass following of the communists accepted the argument that religion was corrupt and evil and had to be abolished as part of modernisation.

There is a tendency for modern American atheists to ignore the historical origins of atheism in communist revolution. When ordinary people hear the term 'militant atheist' they associate it with 'godless communist'. This is a big part of why atheists are regarded as pariahs. People see atheists as confused and dangerous.

The world needs militant atheists who can evangelize against the supernatural in a way that presents an ethical message that people can believe. Supernatural delusion is probably the number one ideological danger for world peace. But atheism has such a chequered past that modern atheism needs to work through its philosophy, developing theory on ethics, economics and psychology. It is not good enough to use simple populist critiques of faith and of socialism, because atheism is entwined with these major religious and political movements at its roots.

'Militant' does not have to mean violent, although that was its association in the communist attacks on religion. It is more about having an intransigent and coherent ethical vision regarding the error of religious thought, and seeing atheism as a necessary and good basis for social reform.

Dawn · Wed May 25, 2011 5:42 pm


	Quote: Robert: The world needs militant atheists who can evangelize against the supernatural in a way that presents an ethical message that people can believe. Supernatural delusion is probably the number one ideological danger for world peace.

Do you see folks like Sam Harris working towards this end? [i.e. Let's 'get rid of' all persons who believe in anything they cannot see, for starters....doesn't fit traditional ideas of ethical but hey... if God's officially dead then ethics is whatever we make it out to be...And then at last without God and without Christians (or Muslims, or Buddhists, or ....) then maybe we can have some world peace.]

Glad I won't be around!

Robert: What would you figure is the second greatest ideological danger for world peace? Deluded naturalists?

Interbane · Wed May 25, 2011 6:17 pm


	Quote: Robert: What would you figure is the second greatest ideological danger for world peace? Deluded naturalists?

A holy war between different religions. If we ever have a very religious president, tell the Middle East to watch out!

stahrwe · Wed May 25, 2011 7:35 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: Robert: What would you figure is the second greatest ideological danger for world peace? Deluded naturalists?

A holy war between different religions. If we ever have a very religious president, tell the Middle East to watch out!

If you had bothered to read the Bible you would appreciate that the US seems to be missing from the assault on Israel which will come. It may be that the US has caesed to be a friend of Israel by then, or perhaps we have retreated into ourselves either for ideological reasons or due to some disaster or attack. In any case it is only your conceit that assumes the US must participate. The prophecy seems to indicate that it's Israel against the entire world. It isn't far from that now. Can you name another ally Israel has other than the US?

Forum rules

Militant Atheism Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!