Militant Atheism

[johnson1010]

Could it be that you are applying a double standard?

[sarcasm]Who, Stahrwe?


.... NEVER.[/sarcasm]

[Robert Tulip]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[stahrwe]

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?

If you are referring to Christians, I don't know of any who reject reason. In fact, I think you will find that throughout history Christians have been the most reasonable people around. I don't think you would hear one of them say, 'if I could waive a magic wand and make either rape or atheism go away I would choose atheism."

[stahrwe]

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.

No, I think you made a mistake and are too embarrassed to admit it.

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?

So many mistakes. First, why would anyone believe Hitler; the master of the Big Lie.
Second, Nothing about Hitler spoke of Christianity.
Third, read Chapter 11, Nazi Theology, in Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas
Fourth, I refer you to page 135 of The Messianic Legacy by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, Henry Holt and Co. 1986.

But the supreme example of right-wing totalitarianism achieving the status of a religion is Nazi Germany. Unlike Fascism in Italy, Nazism was not just an ideology or philosophy. Unlike the Spanish version of Fascism Nazism did not align itself with the vested religious interests. On the contrary, it undertook, quite systematically, to supplant all such interests and establishe itself as an entirely new religion.

The atheist states engaged in systematic, ruthless murder on a scale unprecedented in human history and while Hitler had his own scorecard I did not include him because he was not an atheist.

I hope you have learned from the above that Hitler and Nazism were not Christian.

[Interbane]

No, I think you made a mistake and are too embarrassed to admit it.

I'm pretty sure there are 3 sarcastic posts in this thread, and you took each and every one seriously. There are useful skills in dialogue other than the dictionary interpretation of words. The logical framework that the words express, for one. Understanding the other person's intent, for another. Your seemingly clever replies completely miss the points.

[Robert Tulip]

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?

Dawn, you insinuate that Sam Harris is not a liberal humanist in your suggestion that he would want to 'get rid of' people he disagrees with. You seem to equate American atheism, which is a highly compassionate and evidence-based religion, with traditional communist atheism which sets its faith within the context of class warfare. Harris does not seek to "get rid" of anyone.

Your suggestion that atheists reject the existence of things that cannot be seen is wrong. Science believes in many things that cannot be seen, such as atoms, gravity, relativity, etc. What science rejects is claims that conflict with observation, such as the whole theory of supernaturalism. Scientists and atheists as a whole support the right of people to hold deluded beliefs, and only seek to change them by rational persuasion.

I have not seen any atheists advocating mass murder other than those who agreed with Stalin's views on The Elimination of the Kulaks as a Class (source).

Stalin told the 15th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that "We also have a shortcoming like the slackening in the struggle against religion" (source). Comments like this gave licence for mass persecution of the religious. Stalin wrote in 1909 "So-called "god-building" as a literary trend and, in general, the introduction of religious elements into socialism is the result of an interpretation of the principles of Marxism that is unscientific and therefore harmful for the proletariat. The Baku Committee emphasises that Marxism took shape and developed into a definite world outlook not as the result of an alliance with religious elements, but as the result of an implacable struggle against them." (Source)

These attitudes of 'implacable struggle' provided the intellectual foundation for the oppression of Christians in the Soviet Union and are the reason that religious people continue to tar atheists with the militant brush of desire to persecute the faithful. I don't think any modern liberal atheists would advocate persecution, although there is a growing tendency, which I disagree with, to eliminate Christianity from public gaze. It is possible to be militantly opposed to wrong ideas while respecting the right of people to hold them.

My own view is that Christianity and atheism can be reconciled, so I think it is good to keep Christian traditions, even while seeking to transform their intellectual content onto a natural basis.

Naturalism is not dangerous. It is our only hope.

[stahrwe]

No, I think you made a mistake and are too embarrassed to admit it.

I'm pretty sure there are 3 sarcastic posts in this thread, and you took each and every one seriously. There are useful skills in dialogue other than the dictionary interpretation of words. The logical framework that the words express, for one. Understanding the other person's intent, for another. Your seemingly clever replies completely miss the points.

Perhaps I missed the sublety but I doubt he was that clever. If he did intend it that way it is even worse. I am not a Dawkins fan, but I doubt that he would approve of eugenics in the way Hitler practiced it while, Darwin was used as a basis for the founding of eugenics. My list was of atheists and the interjection of Hitler into the list was something I frankly expected. My personal opinion is that the first one to play the Hitler card loses as it is so overused that it becomes annoying. That being said, to criticize me for leaving Hitler off a list of atheists smacks more of ignorance than inventiveness. To then go on to claim Hitler was a Christian displays even more ignorance. The sarcasm might be easier to detect if so many errors weren't present.