Print Page | Close Window

Confronting Militant Atheism

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Description: Topics relating to philosophy
Moderators: Akolouthos
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22817
Printed Date: 01-Mar-2021 at 17:14
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Confronting Militant Atheism
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Subject: Confronting Militant Atheism
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 23:42
http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html

Confronting Militant Atheism

Article by Jack Holgroth

Who Is The Militant Atheist?

Most Christians have by now encountered the term "Militant Atheist" in the media. A few have even had the misfortune to encounter a Militant Atheist firsthand. But who is the Militant Atheist, what does he want from us, and what threat does he pose?

The Militant Atheist goes by many names: Atheist, New Atheist, Secular Humanist, Communist, Darwinist, Anarcho-Militerialist, Richard Dawkins, &c.. He hates God so much that he foolishly http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#fn1 - 1 denies God's existence; He hates those who love God so much that he lashes out at them in bitter, vituperative displays of invective; And finally, pathetically, he hates himself so much that he would reject the sure payoff of God's Infinite Love in favor of the negative-sum blasphemy of an Atheistic worldview. The Militant Atheist is a man playing a predetermined game against his Creator with no hope of finding a winning strategy.

His twisted doctrine is not a new one, although it may be relatively unfamiliar to these Christian shores. In the USSR, the Union of Militant Atheists (also known as "the Union of Belligerent Atheists" or "the League of the Militant Godless") would routinely persecute Christians with their mocking and blasphemous writings, encouraged in their militancy by Party leaders http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#fn2 - 2 . This had its natural result in the anti-Christian violence of Stalin's regime. As we shall discover, all who profess Atheism have within them the imperative to be militant, to do violence -- first by word, then eventually by deed.

According to researchers and historians, the ultimate goal of the Militant Atheist is the destruction of Christian society through violent action. http://www.americanvision.org/ - American Vision 's http://www.foolsheart.com/ - Fool's Heart Project , which is dedicated to tracking the history and spread of Militant Atheism, makes the case that the threat posed by the Militant Atheist today is very real and historically precedented:

http://www.americanvision.org/downloads/FoolsHeart.mp4">Dawkins%20quote
Scene from the http://www.americanvision.org/downloads/FoolsHeart.mp4 - Fool's Heart Project video (10MB).
Atheists present themselves as enlightened and civil. But http://www.americanvision.org/downloads/FoolsHeart.mp4 - this new commercial will reveal the shocking truth to viewers. The French Revolution, Communism, Nazism, etc. have taught us that the atheistic worldview will inevitably lead to the persecution of Christians and the killing of anyone who gets in the way. What's worse is that atheism is paving a wide road for Islam to advance in our nation and around the world.

As American Vision's commercial illustrates, the French Revolution's bloody Reign of Atheist Terror had its foundation in people writing in favor of "reason" and "rationality" and "thinking" in much the same way as the Dawkinses and Harrises writing books and articles do today. But is today's Militant Atheist really a tiger of the same stripe as the murderous Robespierre or other notorious Militant Atheists such as Stalin and Hitler http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#fn3 - 3 ? Is he truly militant, or just unduly obnoxious, arrogant, and foolish? To be sure, as the video points out, Dawkins has called for the imprisonment of Christians who teach their children about God http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#fn4 - 4 , but can the books written by him and other Militant Atheists really be a prelude to bloodshed?

Sadly, yes.

Today's Militant Atheist is no better than his foolish ancestors (whom, presumably, he believes to be monkeys). He speaks of Reason, but is really interested in arming himself, digging himself into our Christian soil, and awaiting the coming anti-Christian military purge that he so desperately desires. Today he writes books, tomorrow he will throw bombs. Today he http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37871 - abuses our courts to silence God , tomorrow he will put the Christian parent on trial for "child abuse". Today he mocks the Christian, tomorrow he will hunt the Christian down in the streets like a stray dog and euthanize him to stop the "disease" of Christianity.

The Faces Of Militant Atheism Today

Richard%20Dawkins Sam%20Harris Michael%20Newdow Paul%20Z.%20Meyers
Fig. 1 Militant Atheists

The Militant Atheist varies in appearance (fig. 1), although he is most often a white male. It is next to impossible to identify him from his physical attributes alone, at least from a distance (some claim there is a look in his eyes -- a deadened, beast-like stare -- but as far as I know this has never been confirmed objectively). In the past he has favored beards in emulation of historical Atheists, particularly Charles Darwin and Karl Marx, but this seems to have fallen out of fashion with the changing times.

Christopher%20Hitchens
Fig. 2 Militant Atheist engaged in typical behavior

He often dons abnormal garb when he rises to power (e.g. the various uniforms of Communism, Nazism, &c.), but while lying in wait in our society the Militant Atheist typically dresses in attire socially appropriate for the occasion, though perhaps looking more disheveled than average. He will sometimes wear offensive tee-shirts or place blasphemous decals on his automobile, but the lack of these signs cannot be counted on for identification purposes.

Most of the Militant Atheist's typical activities are done in secret (fig. 2), away from the eye of the Christian, so they do not reveal him to his neighbors -- or even his family members. Whether writing or reading screeds on Atheism, posting to Internet discussion forums mocking the Lord, or simply stewing alone in his anti-Christian hatred, his Atheistic behavior usually goes unnoticed by those around him. He attends no "Atheist church", although he may join organizations dedicated to suing against the free exercise of Christianity. On Sunday mornings he can be found either staying home slothfully or blending in with the Jews and lapsed, nonobservant Christians milling about hopelessly in public away from church.

What gives the Militant Atheist away is when he opens his mouth. He cannot help but hatefully insult God, Christianity, Christians, Faith, and the Bible every chance he gets. He will go out of his way to bring up pointless, refuted objections to the Gospel, and list his many perceived grievances against Christians -- all either trivial or delusional. Even when he is guarded in his speech to hide his intentions, knee-jerk sarcasm and a general tone of haughtiness give away his true opinion of all things related to God. He sneers, he gloats, he shows contempt for reverence and ignorance of Truth. The Militant Atheist uses his words like the punches of an angry drunk, never hitting their mark, but always intended to do the utmost violence. This is how you will identify the Militant Atheist.

Although most often afflicting men, it's not unheard of for impressionable women to suffer from Atheism, usually in association with emotional abuse. A recent example of this phenomena, as well as of the Militant Atheist's self-exposure through unwarranted hate-speech, is Secular television actress Kathy Griffin (fig. 3), a self-avowed "complete Militant Atheist" who shocked even fellow Hollywood Liberals at the 2007 Emmy awards ceremony by http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57586 - yelling a crude blasphemy at the Lord then announcing that the golden statuette "is my god now".

Kathy%20Griffin
Fig. 3
Patty%20Hearst
Fig. 4

While Griffin claims that her Catholic school experience drove her to Militant Atheism, there were many years between her exposure to the flawed teachings of the Catholics and this militant outburst. Her public transformation from relatively harmless Secular entertainer to militant anti-God agitator reminds me of nothing so much as the notorious 1974 forced transformation of Patty Hearst into Tania, the Symbionese guerilla terrorist (fig. 4). Could there be a connection? Could Militant Atheist groups be kidnapping people and brainwashing them for propaganda use or as sleeper cell agents? That's one possible explanation for the existence of the Militant Atheist, though certainly not the only.

What Drives A Man To Militant Atheism?

Now that we have met the Militant Atheist, we must ask: How did he become so twisted?

Why would a man, created by God in His image, wish to deny the very existence of He who Loves him more than any other being could? Theopsychologists have long wrestled with this vexing question, but have been unable to come to a satisfactory conclusion. Some suggest it is the result of his selfish desire to be free of accountability for his actions; others, that he is indoctrinated by a constant stream of Atheistic media propaganda produced by a small number of Satan's agents on earth; others still, that he suffers from some sort of brain damage, leaving him in a state of spiritual unaffectedness.

Whatever the origins of Atheism may be, given that, against all reason, the Atheist exists, that he would be driven to militarism and violence is actually understandable -- even unavoidable. He clearly suffers from some manner of derangement, either proceeding his Atheism or as a result of it, that causes him to lash out in irrational anger. He is unable to understand why he cannot function as a healthy spiritual person the way the rest of us do, making him both jealous and resentful. Most importantly, being separated from God, the wellspring of Love, drives him insane with hate.

Naturally, this leads us to conclude that militancy is an inherent part of the Atheistic mindset, that the Atheist will always seek violence, starting with the violence of intemperate words and escalating to the horrors of Stalinism. Unless we can convert him, heal his spiritual wounds, the Militant Atheist will always be a danger to society.

The Atheist Hides His Militancy In Plain Sight

"Surely this is an exaggeration," some may protest, "The Atheist cannot possibly be that militant." By His Grace, we Christians are often too pure in our hearts to fully appreciate the spiritual depths to which the Militant Atheist has sunk, and of what acts of benthic blasphemy he is capable as the slimy hagfish of nihilism slowly pick apart his soul. Make no mistake about it, though, the Militant Atheist isn't just "militant" in the adjectival sense, he is also a Militant of the nounal variety.

Clues to the Militant Atheist's literal militancy are not difficult to find for those with the stomach to look. For example, take the iconic imagery used by Atheist organizations:

American%20Atheists%20logo
Fig. 5
Soviet%20nuclear%20warhead
Fig. 6

The so-called "American Atheists" http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#fn5 - 5 -- an oxymoron if ever there was -- is the largest Atheist organization operating in our nation. They have as their logo (fig. 5) what is clearly a combination of a nuclear atom with a missile head, such as the nuclear warheads used by the Soviets (fig. 6). They claim this logo is merely symbolic of their worship of science, but its true purpose is to signal to their compatriots their goal to obtain nuclear devices to use against Christians.

Surrendering%20Humanist
Fig. 7
French%20Revolution
Fig. 8 Secular Humanism's "justice"

The logo of the Secular Humanists (fig. 7) represents a person with arms raised in surrender, presumably to an Atheistic military dictatorship. The figure is called "Happy Human" by the Humanists, a name intended to inculcate passive acceptance of this surrender to Godlessness. And if that Orwellian tactic doesn't work, the surrendering figure has his head decapitated to echo the mode of punishment favored during the Atheistic French Revolution for those who did not toe the Secular Humanist's line (fig. 8).

Consider also the "entertainment" produced by the Militant Atheist. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the magnum opus of Militant Atheist and Darwinian film director Stanley Kubrick, man-apes at the beginning of time are inspired not by the light of God, but by the inky depths of a black monolith, symbolic of the cold void of Atheism. And what inspiration does this Prophet of Atheism bring to the man-apes? It teaches them hate for their fellow man-apes and how to create weapons to kill (fig. 9). This is the origins theory that the Militant Atheist demands we teach our children.

2001%20ape-man
Fig. 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqpRkGvcnbE">Conquest%20of%20the%20Planet%20of%20the%20Apes
Fig. 10 Dramatized Atheist uprising

Worse yet, in the 1972 film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqpRkGvcnbE - Conquest of the Planet of the Apes , Darwinian symbolism is used to represent Atheists as apes, kept brutally enslaved and beaten by humans, who symbolically represent Christians. (This, of course, is just deceitful, self-serving propaganda designed to rationalize their unjustified hatred of Christians; Atheists were never enslaved by Christians and rarely beaten -- and then only with just cause.) Caesar, the talking http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#fn6 - 6 leader of the Atheist-apes, provokes an uprising in which apes seize the humans' own weapons and use them to destroy human (Christian) civilization in a bloody, howling rampage of violence (fig. 10). To the Militant Atheist, this movie is a "cult classic" that serves as a not-so-cryptic roadmap to his vision of the future: the Conquest of Christendom.

More so than his choice of imagery and symbolism, or even his written declarations, the Militant Atheist signals his desire for violence against the Christian by his acts -- in particular, his seeking to insinuate himself into our Christian military to subvert it to his decidedly un-Christian ends.

How The Atheist Has Infiltrated Our Foxhole

During the Cold War, we provided training, weapons, and funding to the Mujahideen in Afghanastan to aid them in their fight against the USSR. We did so thinking the Mussulman preferable to the Godless Soviet, since the former at least shared our trust in God, however confused the Mussulman may have been about His identity and plan for Humanity. Thus, we were willing to overlook our differences and past hostilities in the face of our common enemy: Atheistic Communism. This unstable cooperative strategy has since came back to haunt us. http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#fn7 - 7

Now we see history repeating in the Global War on Terror. In looking for a common enemy of our enemy, we have reached out to our former foe the Atheist and recruited him into the ranks of our military. We have trained him in the use of our weapons and allowed him to learn our tactics. We do all this because he finds the radicalized Islamicist as much an enemy as do we and is willing to fight, even if out of blind hatred and selfishness rather than righteousness and just cause.

But once we have defeated the Terror, should we not expect that the Atheist will turn against us much as the Musselman did? The Militant Atheist pledges no allegiance to http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/godlyflag.html - our flag or to God -- he does not share our common American creed; so why then does he fight for God's favored nation? The answer is simple: he does so only to leech our strength and weaken from within our ability to defend Christian civilization.

Already the Militant Atheist, having camouflaged himself in our uniform, has begun chipping away at the Christian bedrock of our military (aided, of course, by his close friend: the ACLU Lawyer). Example: because of the crocodile-tears of Militant Atheists who somehow managed to gain entrance to the U.S. Air Force Academy, instructors there are now no longer allowed to train cadets in the Christian values upon which our nation was founded. http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#fn8 - 8 The young men and women graduating from this institution as officers, who will be placed in positions of power where life and death decisions must be made under fire, will be without traditional military training in how to seek guidance from our Lord. This is unacceptable!

Atheistic meddling isn't just an issue in military academia; it has started to creep into our combat deployed forces. Recently, http://www.myspace.com/freddywelborn - Major Freddy Welborn , warrior for the Lord Jesus Christ currently serving in Iraq, had a frivolous lawsuit filed against him by Atheists. The lawsuit seeks to keep Major Welborn from freely practicing his religious calling to preach the Gospel of God to service men and women in Iraq -- including service men holding "Atheist meetings" on government property. As of this writing, the case hasn't yet gone to trial. However, just the threat of such litigation will cause our brave Christian soldiers to worry about their assets being seized by Atheist lawyers back home while they're fighting on the front line. This vexatious distraction will endanger lives and provide comfort to our enemies.

The Atheist may be a fool, but I fear he is less so than those in our leadership who have allowed him to infiltrate our armed forces. Will not World War Five http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#fn9 - 9 pit God's enemies against those left behind after the Rapture, when we Christians have ascended bodily into Heaven? We know that all Jews will become Christians then, and many from other false faiths will finally seek to learn the Good News and join in the fight against the Antichrist; but the Militant Atheist, driven by irrational hatred, is the least likely to accept the Truth and turn away from Evil. Will he not relish the disappearance of his Christian foes? Indeed, is not the Tribulation exactly for what the Militant Atheist has lusted?

Are we not then, by allowing Militant Atheists access to our arsenal and military know-how, helping to fill the ranks of the very army of the Antichrist that those freshly converted Christians will have to fight? God created America and Graced her with military might so that we may set the stage for Tribulation prior to Rapture. While the end game is already determined and God's final strategy cannot but win, by allowing Christian-trained Atheist soldiers -- and our equipment to which they have access, including the nuclear devices that the "American Atheists" so crave -- to fall into the hands of the Forces of Darkness, we will just be leaving behind a larger mess to clean-up when we the Elect return with Christ to establish His Kingdom on Earth. We only have one shot at the End Times, people; let's not do a sloppy job about it.

The age-old adage that "There are no Atheists in foxholes" has been shown to be mistaken. They are in our foxholes, plotting our destruction. Militant Atheism is a clear and present danger to not only combat readiness, but to the very future of Christian society and to the viability of a weak and confused post-Rapture Tribulation Force tasked with the final witnessing objective before the Second Coming. We must act now to rid our armed forces of this undesirable element before it is too late -- the fate of billions of souls hangs in the balance!

Fighting The Militant Atheist

UPDATE: Many of you, alarmed at the dangerous rise of Militant Atheism in our nation, and particularly in our military, have written to me since this article was released asking what can be done to fight the scourge of the Militant Atheist infiltrating our Armed Forces. Fortunately there are a number of good organizations, known as military para-church ministries, working to make sure that our military remains a Christian one. Here are a few of the more notable, well-funded ones:

http://www.militaryministry.org/ - Campus Crusade Military Ministry :

Military Ministry is a subsidiary of http://www.ccci.org/ - Campus Crusade for Christ established in 1964. MM seeks to help every troop, every leader, every family member hear and receive the life saving message about Jesus. They are very active on military and ROTC campuses, working to make sure our soldiers remain in a state of Spiritual Readiness through their http://www.valormovement.com/ - Valor programs .

Their vision is to transform the nations of the world through the militaries of the world. Their mission is "to Win, Build, and Send in the power of the Holy Spirit and establish movements of spiritual multiplication in the worldwide military community."

As http://www.militaryministry.org/about/ - they note : "the battle is nigh; the time is short; we, together, can make a difference, an eternal difference."

http://ocf.gospelcom.net/ - Officers' Christian Fellowship :

The OCF, whose motto is: "Christian officers exercising Biblical leadership to raise up a godly military," seeks to glorify God by uniting Christian officers for biblical fellowship and outreach, equipping and encouraging them to minister effectively in the military society. They have 15,000 members in the US officer corps spread across 200 bases worldwide. Their http://ocf.gospelcom.net/about/purpose.php - vision for the US Armed Forces by 2011:

A spiritually transformed military, with ambassadors for Christ in uniform, empowered by the Holy Spirit, living with a passion for God and compassion for the entire military society.

To achieve that vision, they have developed http://ocf.gospelcom.net/about/strategy.php - strategic goals -- divided into Leadership, Outreach, Family, and Stewardship -- which include such important objectives as encouraging Biblical marriage and parenthood throughout the military environment, and carrying the gospel through the medium of ordinary relationships among the entire military community.

In order to accomplish its goals, the OCF's http://ocf.gospelcom.net/capital/capital.php - Capital Campaign is raising $12.5 million to build state-of-the-art facilities in White Sulphur Springs, PA and Spring Canyon, CO, which will serve as family retreats and conference centers.

http://christianembassy.com/ - Christian Embassy :

Christian Embassy was founded in 1975 and seeks to help diplomats, government leaders and military officers find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement. The Embassy especially ministers to the Pentagon, making sure that the Chain of Command is not corrupted by Atheist outsiders. Their Bible study curriculum is used by over 350 Bible study classes throughout the halls of power in Washington DC.

Footnotes:

  1. http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#b1 - "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalm 14:1)

  2. http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#b2 - See Lenin's manifesto of Atheistic militancy, http://www.marxist.com/classics/lenin/militant_materialism.html - On The significance of Militant Materialism .

  3. http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#b3 - See Dinesh D'Souza's http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html - "Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history" and http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0214.htm - "Answering Atheists' Arguments" .

  4. http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#b4 - See http://telicthoughts.com/uk-petition-against-religious-upbringing/ - "UK petition against religious upbringing" .

  5. http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#b5 - The "American Atheists" was founded by notorious Militant Atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who died the way she lived: violently. Their website can be found http://www.atheists.org/ - here .

  6. http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#b6 - Note how literacy and the ability to speak with the same fluency as the humans/Christians is pointedly used as the sign of the violent revolutionary who will lead the apes/Atheists to war with human/Christian society, clearly telegraphing the end-game that well-spoken Atheist authors like Dawkins and Harris are playing toward.

  7. http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#b7 - At the time, I and my fellow Game Theoreticians working at the Department of Defense cautioned against this strategy. Our Payoff Matrices for the Afghanastan theater -- generated both from still-classified game theories and via simulations on our trusty Cray -- all pointed to the unstable nature of the Christian/Mussulman solution concept, with equilibria worryingly dependent on the continued existence of the Soviet Union. It was a game where to win might mean to lose.

    Our warnings were ignored by a civilian leadership that paid too little heed to game theory, and so the support of the Mujahideen went ahead. Unfortunately it turned out that we Game Theoreticians were right, for though we won the Cold War, out of our Mujahideen "allies" rose many of the very terrorists that we are now fighting.

  8. http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#b8 - See http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41569 - "Air Force cracks down on Christian 'coercion'" .

  9. http://objectiveministries.org/gametheory/militantatheists.html#b9 - DoD Eschatologists since the Hoover administration have agreed that World War Five will be the Tribulation -- this is why the Pentagon was built with only five sides, as no more would be needed after that final Secular battle. (For those not keeping count, the Cold War was WW3 and the current Global War on Terror is WW4.)


I decided to shoot old "Diamond" Jack Holgroth an e-mail in response. I mean, honestly, what sort of Salem Witch-Hunt nonsense is this? Are there people in the world who actually buy into this vitriol and hate-mongering? Is this offensive to anyone else, Christian or not? I'd like to submit it for to debate to the public forum, since obviously I am not as "Objective" as this fellow or his ministry. This is what I wrote to him, verbatim.


Dear Sir,
I was introduced to your 'Confronting Militant Atheists' article by a friend through the Camps Crusade for Christ at Towson University, in Baltimore, Maryland, which I currently attend. A little prologue, before I begin: I am an atheist myself, and am in no way trying to "subvert" the faith of my Christian friend (in fact, I respect his beliefs, and indeed respect him for them, as he seems to have been able to find a pocket Providence which seems to have escaped me), though we do enjoy spirited debates about the nature and/ or existence of God, and generally enjoy one another's friendship. We engage in "Christian" activities together, belonging to the same Greek Life Fraternity, and volunteering through many of the same Charities. I have even attended Sunday Church with him before, at his encouragement, to see if maybe I could find something in it to encourage me towards belief- and no, I did not try to "subvert" any members of his congregation, but calmly and introspectively listened to and contemplated the messages of the Reverend, and reflected on it afterwards. I believe Atheists are just as capable of open-mindedness and are as open to tolerance of beliefs as any practicing Christian. I mean this as a means of exposition; Atheists, sir, are not bad people because they don't believe in God- they are just as capable of "Christian" acts and actions as any Christian. That said, just because a person believes in God does not make him a "good" person; if it did, why would there be priests and ministers attending Death Row inmates to hear final confessions, and offer last rites?
But my main point, sir, is that you seem to little understanding of the sort of people you see vehemently criminalize. The vast majority of us are no more trying to destroy Western Civilization than any Christian, nor are we trying to convert anyone away from their faith in whatever God or Gods they see fit to believe in. If anyone can be accused of trying to change the minds of people to fall in line with their own goals and agendas, it would be messianic faiths such as evangelical Christianity. I can say with a certainty that I have never tried to convince any one of any faith away from their beliefs, and I am certain the vast majority of atheists would agree with me. We are not part of some Satanic coven; there are no secret societies seeking to steal away Christians to corrupt them in the image of the anti-Christ, and we MOST CERTAINLY are not seeking nuclear weapons to use against Christians. I highly suggest, sir, that you seek within yourself, and look for a little bit of that Christian peace and understanding you espouse so highly, rather than exhorting your fellow Christians towards hatred and actions against people who are just trying to live their lives as they see fit; just like you and your fellow Christians. Rhetoric such as you have demonstrated is not the language of love, of Christianity, but of hate and intolerance. There can be no less Christian sentiments than these two. I hope that you are able to find love and empathy for those you so vilify. Jesus would be proud.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Brian J Checco

Was this a judicious and level-headed response? Can anyone give me some insight into why people feel so threatened by those whose beliefs differ from their own? I'm absolutely at a loss right now. I thought this was the 21st century, not the 17th...

Edit: This is also very negative towards Muslims as well. How can some sects of "Christianity" be so ingrained in intolerance and hate?



Replies:
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 23:52
Jack Holgroth gets my vote for president.

-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 00:00
People like him would be no different in a relatively lawless society to the likes of Zarqawi and friends.  I think your response was superb, though i would have gone for the jugular with a little more ferocity at the end.  

-------------


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 00:10
Eh, I liked the "Jesus would be proud" part. Plus, reacting with "violent rhetoric" would undermine my own position, as well as strengthen his. And, f*ck that. I'd rather not give him the satisfaction to say to his buddies, "See? This is the kind of rude, unChristian crap these Atheists will send to you..."
Honestly, I'd more likely try to open up the minds of people like that then merely call them c*nts... And no, I don't mean subvert them to atheism...
The scary thing is, I did some research on that guy, and he used to work for the department of defense... Zagros, in some ways, you were right about the neocon agenda. Crazy, man.


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 00:17
I like your responce, I hope it shuts him up. The only way I relate to other athiest is that we all don't believe in a supernatural being. I wish their was a seperate name since now it's believed all athiests share a common doctrine that they follow and have an agenda against the "believers".

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 00:37
That's because of the propagation of misinformation, such as the writing of articles by the likes of Mr. Holgroth.



Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 05:07
Wow, if beards are a sign of the militant atheist, what does that say about our hierarchs and clergy here in the Orthodox Church? LOL
 
Wow, when I first read through this, I thought it was a joke; I literally checked the source to make sure that you weren't trying to pull on over on me. I mean honestly, who uses the term "Mussulman" anymore? When was it ever used? I've heard the term "Ishmaelite" used more than "Mussulman".
 
That said, you are correct, the guy is an ass. What is more troubling is that he is an ass who obviously a) has a following, and b) has no qualms about resorting to disturbing rhetoric. But part of my problem with people like Dawkins is precisely that they share both of these characteristics. Thus, while the majority of the "article" was a hateful joke, this evident absurdity should not be used to discredit the existence of militant atheism -- which has become so dogmatic that it is, after a fashion, a religion unto itself.
 
Anyway, the guy is a nut. Your response was measured; although I would have phrased it a bit differently, were I in your position, there would have been no great change in tone.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 05:14
You can pick any given paragraph in that article and not one single part of it makes a rational argument. I know because I randomly picked out different paragraphs and they are all alike. I'm going to print this out and next time I have friends over we shall have a good laugh over it.

-------------
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.



Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 05:17
Again; sad part- Fellow was one of the Game Theoreticians who worked for the Department of Defense... this isn't scary to anyone else?


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 05:21
PS- Dawkins and Hitchens are just as annoying to atheists as they are to believers; I just want to be left alone to figure out my spirituality (or lack thereof) for myself; I don't want or need anyone, atheist, christian, muslim, jew, hindu, hare krishna, (fill in your own blanks) telling me anything one way or the other- messianic atheism is for the same sort of people who follow religions without a strong foundation for belief; whoever gets to them first and talks the loudest will make their mind up for them. If anyone stopped believing in God because of a book someone wrote, they're impressionable. If they start believing in God for the same reason, they're impressionable. Make up your own damn minds, people.


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 12:07
This isn't a joke from uncyclopedia? Wow...

-------------
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.




Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 13:09
Originally posted by Brian J Checco Brian J Checco wrote:

Eh, I liked the "Jesus would be proud" part. Plus, reacting with "violent rhetoric" would undermine my own position, as well as strengthen his. And, f*ck that. I'd rather not give him the satisfaction to say to his buddies, "See? This is the kind of rude, unChristian crap these Atheists will send to you..."
Honestly, I'd more likely try to open up the minds of people like that then merely call them c*nts... And no, I don't mean subvert them to atheism...
The scary thing is, I did some research on that guy, and he used to work for the department of defense... Zagros, in some ways, you were right about the neocon agenda. Crazy, man.


No, by all means it was superb, like I said.  But I don't think that the minds of such people can so easily be changed or opened.  Btw, by ferocity and going for the jugular I didn't mean with the use of expletives. 


-------------


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 16:16
My forgiveness, sir. I'm an American. We're a simple people. We're either polite, or insulting someone's mother.


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 16:36

Wow, that's some vituperation from an individual (not you, Brian). While in the communist era, though atheism was encouraged, the Church was, like it is now, an institution of the state. As a matter of fact there was it was part of the Goverment in "Ministerul Culturii si Cultelor"="Ministry of Culture and Cults". The Romanian Orthodox Church is still a state institution though not to a very large extent, our country turns slowly to becaming really secular. People were indeed discouraged to believe but freedom of religion was guaranteed by the Constitution. Off course there have been plaenty of perscutions against believers but not to the extent Western Propaganda states. And there was a very sound policy, IMHO, of slamming down any kind of religious fervor. Of course, political indoctrination was the rule ny then but trust me, people didn't really took what they were told at political propaganda for granted. If it would have been so we would be "reds" and the cold war winners.

On the other hand, different sects appeared during those days, like the Jehova witnesses. These guys are quite harmless compared to others. I remember reading a book "Pericolul sectelor religioase"="Religious Sects Danger".  Well documented and with only a slight propagandism it really was a book to read. Unfortunately now those sectants have become former disidents or persecuted so they grew up and are difficult to remove from the public life. Fortunately, the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Romano Catholic Cchurh and the Reformate still hold the most of the belivers in my country. They hold to tradition and are definitely not anti-social like the individual who wrote that article but their are well balanced in their propaganda. And we certainly do not allow any kind of organization to interfere with the military. Are the commanders of the US Army and Navy irresponsible? How can they allow such things?
You don't need a Presidential decision to start a conflict you only need a crazy individual with acces to a damaging enough piece of warjunk. Religious fervor combined with weapons is not a healthy combination.
Maybe US citizens should really get responsible and act according to their (and not only) interests. They seem to be very proud of your rights and freedom.
It has been said that most americans don't vote because they don't like politicians. Well, that also mean they don't care who is in charge. There are guys wielding agendas and are recruiting adepts. Then they get the votes since people are too lazy to get involved in the democratic process. Eventually people get hurt and start asking "How did it came to this?".
Everybody seems to agree that Germans share their burden of Hitler's atrocities because they did not act to stop them. US citizens are to be blamed by the mess in Iraq not just because they actively supported their President but also because they did not actively confronted him. It seems that memory is short in the USA, the Vietnam war was only four decades ago. And that was a far more legitimate war than Iraq.
So what's the real impact of these preaches on the american society?


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 19:40
I think you missed the point... this article is written by a very uninformed mad who hasn't the slightest notion as to what he's talking about. There are no 'atheist conspiracies,' and we certainly aren't 'infiltrating the military.' This dudes just a hate-monger creating bogeymen to scare his constituents to further the aims of his own affiliation.


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 20:16
Agreed.
 
While no one would deny the existence of militant atheism, the idea that there is some sort of subversive conspiracy is utter rubbish -- and dangerous rubbish at that. The secularist agenda has always been pushed in a quite public fashion, and people like Dawkins, Newdow, and Hitchens are no exception. Indeed, if there is some sort of grand conspiracy, these individuals are certainly doing a downright awful job of aiding their cause. If their goal is discreet infiltration, they might want to consider authoring fewer books, going on fewer talk-shows, engaging in fewer public debates, and -- in the case of Newdow -- bringing fewer lawsuits. LOL
 
This sort of nonsense is what I view as the truly scary thing about the above article: the rhetorical tricks the author uses to characterize militant atheism as a conspiracy perpetuated by subhuman hatemongers, who are incapable of rational thought, and out to get us at every turn. To be sure, the author uses these rhetorical tricks rather poorly; if I were a professional propagandist, I certainly wouldn't hire him. It is the fact that they are used at all that is frightening.
 
As I said, militant atheism exists -- and, as Brian noted, it is as much an embarrasment to agnostics as it is an annoyance to believers. I do view it as a threat. But it is a threat that must be confronted in the same way in which any other social ill is confronted: responsible, open dialogue and peaceful advocacy. The ridiculous rhetoric of Holgroth is a natural precursor to the advocation of a harsh, extraordinary solution to a largely fabricated problem. Thus, it must be condemned.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 15-Dec-2007 at 01:11
Interesting article - but one problem - it's quite clearly written by some kind of Christian extremist. Whilst I see where they are theoratically coming from, it would be more interesting and philosophically viable to have another more liberal Atheist writing something like this

-------------
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 11:59

I find what Holgroth is writing very American and extremely narow-minded.

He even uses great historical events,twists their truthfull and logical course of events,just for a propaganda aimed only at American christians,thats why ,he can only be belived by some blind brain-washed American christians who in the words of their own spiritual leaders,there are only two kind of people in the world.

THOSE WHO LOVE JESUS AND THOSE WHO HATE JESUS.
 
 


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 13:55
Brian, I guess you missed my point. I'm not concened about atheism, since I see it as less harmful. Evene the most radical atheist can't rise a fanatic fervour in his/her disciples. I'm more concened about these:
Quote Military Ministry is a subsidiary of Campus Crusade for Christ established in 1964. MM seeks to help every troop, every leader, every family member hear and receive the life saving message about Jesus. They are very active on military and ROTC campuses, working to make sure our soldiers remain in a state of Spiritual Readiness through their Valor programs.
The OCF, whose motto is: "Christian officers exercising Biblical leadership to raise up a godly military," seeks to glorify God by uniting Christian officers for biblical fellowship and outreach, equipping and encouraging them to minister effectively in the military society. They have 15,000 members in the US officer corps spread across 200 bases worldwide. Their vision for the US Armed Forces by 2011:
A spiritually transformed military, with ambassadors for Christ in uniform, empowered by the Holy Spirit, living with a passion for God and compassion for the entire military society.
To achieve that vision, they have developed strategic goals -- divided into Leadership, Outreach, Family, and Stewardship -- which include such important objectives as encouraging Biblical marriage and parenthood throughout the military environment, and carrying the gospel through the medium of ordinary relationships among the entire military community.
In order to accomplish its goals, the OCF's Capital Campaign is raising $12.5 million to build state-of-the-art facilities in White Sulphur Springs, PA and Spring Canyon, CO, which will serve as family retreats and conference centers.
Do these organizations exist? If so, how? Their relation with the military is extremely dangerous, in my opinion.
15.000 of US officers affiliated to the a thing like OCF? One of these my decide that destroying the mosque in Mecca will serve as a good lesson for the heathen.
The fact that policticians use the military is bad enough, is there any need for the religious driven nutheads to be allowed to interfere? 


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 18:02
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

I'm not concened about atheism, since I see it as less harmful.
 
Well you would, wouldn't you? LOL
 
Quote Evene the most radical atheist can't rise a fanatic fervour in his/her disciples.
 
False.
 
Quote Do these organizations exist? If so, how? Their relation with the military is extremely dangerous, in my opinion.
 
True.
 
Quote One of these my decide that destroying the mosque in Mecca will serve as a good lesson for the heathen.
 
False.
 
Quote
The fact that policticians use the military is bad enough, is there any need for the religious driven nutheads to be allowed to interfere? 
 
A valid point.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 20:22
Cezar, what yo and I find frightening are similar. If any one function of government should be non-denominational, it is the military. While faith-based initiatives in domestic policies can be a very good thing (charity is a universal to almost every religion), the military should not follow any religious agenda. First of all, the military has the greatest potential to do harm and the least potential to do good (from an objective philosophical standpoint), and it's motives should be secular to represent the needs and objectives of a secular government (which we purportedly have). When the military turns to religious objectives, be they Christian, "Mussulman" (wtf?), Jewish, etc. things get very convoluted. The aims and goals of US foreign policy should not be driven by religious agendas, and nor should their mightiest implement- the military- be a tool of these agendas.
That said, a secular organization doesn't mean that it must be atheist or agnostic ( a distinction many evangelicals fail to realize), but rather, constituted of people who practice whatever the choose, but who follow a secular agenda. Like I pointed out earlier, it's also scary that this Holgroth fellow used to work at the Dept. of Defense, and had some measure of influence over US Foreign policy decisions. Even worse is when you get an Evangelical in the White House... Crusades, anyone?


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2007 at 08:48
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

I'm not concened about atheism, since I see it as less harmful.
 
Well you would, wouldn't you? LOL
Would what?
Quote
 
Quote Evene the most radical atheist can't rise a fanatic fervour in his/her disciples.
 
False.
True.
Quote  
 
Quote Do these organizations exist? If so, how? Their relation with the military is extremely dangerous, in my opinion.
 
True.
What's true?
Quote
 
Quote One of these my decide that destroying the mosque in Mecca will serve as a good lesson for the heathen.
 
False.
Possible, maybe not very probable.
Quote
 
Quote
The fact that policticians use the military is bad enough, is there any need for the religious driven nutheads to be allowed to interfere? 
 
A valid point.
 
-Akolouthos
[/QUOTE]
Thanks.


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2007 at 08:57
A side note Brian: in Romanian Muslim=Mussulman. Therefore, more than 20 million people are using "Mussulman". Did Holgroth spend some time in our country? If he likes our country he is welcome. We already have quite a collection of ding-ding public figures but we don't mind diversity. Anyway, he really would became quite harmless.


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2007 at 15:24

Most likey came from the Ottomans. Moslem Turks today call themselves Musluman. 



-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 21:26
The Marxist regimes in China, Viet Nam, Tibet are very militant towards people of faith; Christiams, Jews, Budhist etc.
This is the extreme some would carry into in the west (North American-Europe), if they could. It is like in the former USSR where they would send Christians to mental hospitals for their faith, do not think it could not happen in the west.




proof if you do not believe what these millitant communist athiest are doing.

Someone can believe or not believe in a God, goddess, gods if they want, free will!!

http://www.persecution.org/suffering/index.php - http://www.persecution.org/suffering/index.php

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2008 at 02:27
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

A side note Brian: in Romanian Muslim=Mussulman. Therefore, more than 20 million people are using "Mussulman". Did Holgroth spend some time in our country? If he likes our country he is welcome. We already have quite a collection of ding-ding public figures but we don't mind diversity. Anyway, he really would became quite harmless.


I highly doubt ol' Diamond Jack speaks Romanian. In English, "Musulman" is an antiquated term, having gone out of favor around 50 years ago; it carries with it pejorative connotations. Jacko isn't a Romanian, he's just an old fashioned bigot.


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2008 at 02:48
Originally posted by Brian J Checco Brian J Checco wrote:

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

A side note Brian: in Romanian Muslim=Mussulman. Therefore, more than 20 million people are using "Mussulman". Did Holgroth spend some time in our country? If he likes our country he is welcome. We already have quite a collection of ding-ding public figures but we don't mind diversity. Anyway, he really would became quite harmless.


I highly doubt ol' Diamond Jack speaks Romanian. In English, "Musulman" is an antiquated term, having gone out of favor around 50 years ago; it carries with it pejorative connotations. Jacko isn't a Romanian, he's just an old fashioned bigot.
 
I concur. He likely ran across the term in some polemic he skimmed, and decided to adopt it into his vocabulary; a man of his character would have a need of as many hateful terms as possible.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2008 at 04:31
Nice response Brian LOL. After reading this article of his... I am confused, who does he not have a problem with Ouch.? 

-------------



Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2008 at 04:33
Originally posted by Brian J Checco Brian J Checco wrote:

Again; sad part- Fellow was one of the Game Theoreticians who worked for the Department of Defense... this isn't scary to anyone else?


Maybe God whispered his name as a possible appointment to Bush one of the times our dear President mentioned that he "spoke: to God Confused


-------------



Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2008 at 04:41
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Most likey came from the Ottomans. Moslem Turks today call themselves Musluman. 



I thought it was more like "Musliman." That is the case in Bosnia, and Turks that I know.




-------------



Posted By: Voice of Reason
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2008 at 06:51
Well, after reading this i'm thoroughly dissapointed. I am a Christian myself and I know that many of my own faith are like this and it does sicken me, I hope that none of you draw the conclusion that we are all like this, and i'm sure you havent. As said in the book of Proverbs by the Bible itself, "It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way." (Proverbs 19:2 NIV)
 
I believe this is an example of a man who was too hasty in his zeal and missed the way Tongue


-------------
Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays Scrabble. - Philip Gold


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2008 at 11:22
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

The Marxist regimes in China, Viet Nam, Tibet are very militant towards people of faith; Christiams, Jews, Budhist etc.
This is the extreme some would carry into in the west (North American-Europe), if they could. It is like in the former USSR where they would send Christians to mental hospitals for their faith, do not think it could not happen in the west.

proof if you do not believe what these millitant communist athiest are doing.

Someone can believe or not believe in a God, goddess, gods if they want, free will!!
The persecution of the faithful in the socialist regimes is exagerated. Romania was such a country and I'm getting sick of the way the Church victimizes itself. The Romanian Orthodox Church is a state institution now and it was then too. The Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Romania granted freedom of religion. What in fact was happeninig was that the PCR (Romanian Communis Party) was doing what every communist party did: denying the possibility of people to build up an organization capable to contest it's power. There have been pesrecutions against the faithful, off course, but everyone was under the ever watching  eye of the party.
Religion was not taught in schools but there were institutions for the clergy. He who wanted to became a priest could go there. Also, anyone could become a monk or a nun. And, remember, the church was provided with funds by the state. Being a priest in Romania was and still is a very profitable job.
Therefore, this "militant atheism" of the marxist regimes is just another myth.
I'm an agnostic, though I'm rather on the atheist side of the agnosticism. Atheists and agnostics don't deny one's right to believe in God they just say that there is no God.
I think that people who stick to their religion are doing it because they are not mature enough to accept the fact that something in what they believed is an illusion. I said it before, religious people are like kids who want Santa to real.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2008 at 12:14
Cezar, you gotta be kidding. Don't you remember as a kid how there was no Santa Claus (being associated with Christianity) but mr. Frostman? Don't you remember in school how teachers (I can't say whether it was in the curriculum or not) badmouthed religion (in general), Christianity, clergy, anything they held as superstition and directed the youth to the "scientific socialism"?
I remember I wrote sometime ago in this forum about the religious persection from USSR. On Romania you can check the Final Report issued in 2006 signed by the Presidential Comission of Analysis of the Communism Regime in Romania (which is a body of scholars from various fields). "Claiming the freedom of religious choice remains a formal affirmation, as other juridical acts forbade any religious manifestation contrary to the Communist 'discipline'." (p. 404), "The most important proselyting action was of the Communist state itself, aiming for the elimination of religion from citizen life, under whatever forms it manifested." (p. 453), "Worried by the persistence of the religious beliefs, the Communist authorities were determined to initiate in the '60s-'80s actions of 'scientific education and eradication of mysticism and obscurantism from the conscience of the masses'. [...] In the Romanian theatres or sometimes on improvised scenes in factories or villages, there were staged various plays with anti-religious message or where the historical reality was manipulated and distorsionated. In the '60s-'80s many works of 'scientific atheism' were published - initially translations after Soviet authors, like the famous in that period Atheist Guide, but later autochtonous productions. Usually, it was no neutral presentation of the phenomenon, but about undisimulated attacks against practicing Christians, especially the Neo-Protestants." (p. 469),  "All the authorized cults had to face regime's propaganda through the intensification of the marxist indoctrination, the so-called 'scientific atheism' classes and the campaign against 'mysticism and obscurantism' launched through the July theses from 1971. Moreover cutting down the university positions for theology students, refusing the authorizations necessary to repair or to build churches, closing or demolishing churches, affected all the cults which functioned legally under Communism." (p. 610), etc. - you can find the Report online in Romanian.
 
 


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2008 at 14:28
Quote The Marxist regimes in China, Viet Nam, Tibet are very militant towards people of faith; Christiams, Jews, Budhist etc.
This is the extreme some would carry into in the west (North American-Europe), if they could. It is like in the former USSR where they would send Christians to mental hospitals for their faith, do not think it could not happen in the west.
Quote proof if you do not believe what these millitant communist athiest are doing.
Key words you used, Marxist and Communist. Maybe Athiest by nature, but NOT representative of athiest AT ALL. Thats a political philosophy that follows a athistic view. It's actions are based mostly based on the leaders which in most cases believes organizations that don't share it's own views are bad. In other words, it's about greed and power for those leaders. It's not even a must for this philosophy from what I understand, though I do admit I'm pretty ignorant in that regard about communism and it's views on religion.
 
But my point is, you can't really call it militant atheism. There are two kinds of people we are disussing, people that have faith in something supernatural and people who don't believe in supernatural, Bealievers and Athiest. Those two words alone don't represent a philosophy at all. That why you don't see threads on Militant Believers, but you will see threads on Militant Christians or Militant Muslims etc... Why? Because they do have a philosophy and common following.
 
With Communism, I won't support it and yet I'm a Athiest. I believe there are two other athiest in this thread that wouldn't support it either. So to call it militant Atheism as a representative of Atheism is wrong, because one you can link it with something that doesn't have a philosophy and two it's more of a political system and idea then anything else.


-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2008 at 15:43
Chilbudios, I didn't say that there was no repression against religion I stated that things are exagerated. And don't give me that Censored of a report as a significant document. It's a political tool, nothing more. Don't mistake me, I want no excuse for those who commited atrocities or abuses in the name of communism but it had nothing to do with militant atheism. The "communists" had a political agenda and they stuck to it. The Church/Religion was seen as potential threat so they treated it as such.
That campaign against "mysticism and obscurantism" you mentioned is something the USA might need now. There are to many stances when a person can say "the Bible is all I need" and is appreciated while someone who says "I doubt there is a God" is ostracized. Religion powers up the fundamentalists, and religious people are those who want to save me or my soul. They believe in their divinity and because of that they will burn me at the stake to be sure that I will be pardoned by that illusion.
The crimes of the communist regime were not commited in the name of atheism. They were justifying them by the better good of the society. And the Church was functional those days only not so ostentative as it is  now. As for the preservation of the churches, especially those with historical and cultural significance, do you know that nowadays there are more money spent on building new than restorating the old ones?


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2008 at 17:53
Cezar, that report is signed by reputable scholars. You may not like it for being issued by an official commission, you may not like the president of Romania or the president of that commisison, but basically the information there is scholarly. At page 2, you have the list of authors and coordinators, at pages 21-29 there's a chapter entitled "Historiographic references" but also there are works mentioned in the pages' footnotes.
 
This report, like other scholarly materials ( http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21719&PN=4 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21719&PN=4  - check my last two posts on that page on Sep. 24, 2006), it shows there are atrocities commited in the name of atheism (you can check that episode with the psychiatric treatement recommended as cure for god-belief). I don't know under what criterion what Soviet or Romanian communists did (to destroy the belief in gods and to propagate - among other ideas - the idea there's no god but men and their intelligence, work, society, etc.) does not classify as militant atheism. The extremist atheists are as worse as religious extremists. When was the last non-believer burnt at stake? Until you'll find the answer to that one, please read on what happened in Romanian penitenciaries and sanatories under Communism and find out people tortured and killed for some time no other reason that they had the wrong belief (some religions were illegal in Communist Romania or that they confessed their religion beliefs though they were instructed to abandon them).
 
Quote The crimes of the communist regime were not commited in the name of atheism. They were justifying them by the better good of the society.
The better good of society was composed of equality, respect, atheism, etc.. There's a lot of Communist propaganda saying it I wonder how you have missed it.
 
Quote And the Church was functional those days only not so ostentative as it is  now.
Oh, really? Sources, please. I provided already and that report says the contrary.
 
 


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2008 at 22:58
Quote it shows there are atrocities commited in the name of atheism
In the name of atheism? Maybe in the name of communism, but atheism? There's no doctrine to support for it to be in the name of atheism. There isn't movement or common philosophy in atheism, its a meaning, and it means there isn't a belief that a supernatural being exists.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2008 at 23:17

If there were horrible actions whose purpose was to transform forcefully the society into an atheistic one, because they viewed the religious beliefs as "retrograde", "obscurantist", etc., I think they were done in the name of the atheism, in order for atheism to be the only allowed stance. Yes, in the case of these communist regimes the atheism was among their values (thus those actions were also in the name of the communism), but it was finally not about a forced collectivization, not to distribute equally the wealth or anything, just to force people to stop being religious.

The militant atheists have an atheistic doctrine (otherwise they couldn't be militant, they wouldn't have anything to struggle for) which besides holding the atheist belief, usually holds also some anti-theistic beliefs.
 
 


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2008 at 00:48
Even more disturbing is the way ol' Jacko equates Atheists with "Satanists" (if such a thing even exists...); claiming that Atheists are actively seeking the coming of the Anti-Christ and that other nonsense he was spewing.

Here's a fair question: If atheists don't believe in a God, why would they believe in an Ant-God?

It seems Jackie Diamond forgot to wikipedia the term "Atheist" before he decided to spout off at the cork about it...


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2008 at 02:40
Quote If there were horrible actions whose purpose was to transform forcefully the society into an atheistic one, because they viewed the religious beliefs as "retrograde", "obscurantist", etc., I think they were done in the name of the atheism, in order for atheism to be the only allowed stance.
You can make a society SECULAR, and a doctrine can call for ending organized religion. But you can't make everyone athiest because thats in their mind. You can't force me into a believer like I can't force someone into becoming an athiest.
 
I think part of the problem between your arguement and mine is that our definition differs slightly. I view athiest meaning a definition of a person who don't have a belief in something supernatural, and nothing more then that. And I'd describe a political doctrine like Communism as pushing a secular idea or being secularly motivated. Why? Because I see no kinship with other athiest and don't think their should be a reason to group us. All of us have different ideas unless following a common doctrine, which Atheism doesn't have.
 
We always discuss Muslims and Christians in different threads. So I don't understand how we can talk about Atheist in one thread. Because outside of us not believing in a god, we nothing else in common.


-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2008 at 08:30
Chilbudios, the report in question is not a collection of lies, I never said that. The wrong part is that it only focuses on the bad things. One can select only the proper documents and elaborate a report that would present the Third Reich as being a good society.
And crimes were not commited in the name of atheism. You make a huge mistake if you think communism as equal to atheism. Actually the communist doctrine, ideology, propaganda, etc. was about giving power to the people. It was the top democratic concept. Religion was defined as an instrument to control the people by a few. Religion was then anticommunist. Communism needs no God, since humans, as individuals and as especially as society, are the center of the ideology. Therefore atheism goes hand in hand with communism. There are no extremist atheists, that's an invention. Priests, intellectuals (atheists among them) were killed by the communists not because their religion but because their oposition to the regime. And communists were also zapping eachother in the struggle for power. That kind of regime also promoted perverse individuals in some positions. These guys were useful for those in power because they could be used against opponents. So they allowed them to torture some people just to make them happy. That's horrible but it's not because atheism.
The goal of the socialist state was to reach the communist society. So indeed, the propaganda was using atheism as a key tool to set people off from religion. Yet, show me a piece of the propaganda where it is stated that churches should be razed or religious people should be killed. The religion was openly discouraged and certainly there were lots of sects that were declared illegal. And I do know of churches that have been razed to build blocks. Were people lived. And with decent costs. But unlike the myths you stick the churches were destroyed only if there was no possibility of avoiding that destruction. In my home town there were two churches and when the "systematisation" started, none of them was razed. A cemetary was moved and that's all. With no poltergeist results, the job was well done.
You want sources to confirm that the Church was functional during the communist regime in Romania? Since I lived and live here I don't need them, but do you think that for 42 years the Romanian Orthodox Church was asleep or what? Do you read only what you like about that time? Haven't you heard of the scandals related to the cooperations of the religious leaders with the Security? The Church was faring quite well during the communists, believe me. Only those who opposed the regime were stumped. Or as a result of conflicts. If two priests were to compete for a higher position the one with better connections in the Party would have won. Would you called him a millitant atheist?


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2008 at 09:33
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy SearchAndDestroy wrote:

You can make a society SECULAR, and a doctrine can call for ending organized religion. But you can't make everyone athiest because thats in their mind. You can't force me into a believer like I can't force someone into becoming an athiest.
That's your opinion but there were regimes, organizations, etc. which attempted to force all people to hold the same belief(s). However, if you call for ending organized religion but you don't care that people are actually religious that will be a discriminatory and harmful action (there will still be people believing, only that they will not be allowed to express themselves).
 
Quote I think part of the problem between your arguement and mine is that our definition differs slightly. I view athiest meaning a definition of a person who don't have a belief in something supernatural, and nothing more then that. And I'd describe a political doctrine like Communism as pushing a secular idea or being secularly motivated. Why? Because I see no kinship with other athiest and don't think their should be a reason to group us. All of us have different ideas unless following a common doctrine, which Atheism doesn't have.
Actually I have used throughoutly the term "militant atheism" (in Communism it was called "scientific atheism"). All atheists have in common that belief you have just mentioned. A part of them believe that this belief is undoubtely right and all rational human beings must have it. And here the problems start.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2008 at 09:59
Quote Chilbudios, the report in question is not a collection of lies, I never said that. The wrong part is that it only focuses on the bad things. One can select only the proper documents and elaborate a report that would present the Third Reich as being a good society.
Cezar, what was good? That people were literate but indoctrinated? That the economy moved from agrarian to industrial but was falling apart (eating more than it produced)? And killing and torturing millions of people (it was accused of genocide) is an action which hardly can receive any justification.
 
Quote And crimes were not commited in the name of atheism.
There were episodes which were only about atheism and religious belief. You can say they were part of a larger plan of the Communist authorities but nothing can change there were crimes and abuses commited for the single reason their victims were not atheists.
 
Quote You make a huge mistake if you think communism as equal to atheism.
I've said at least twice, once to you, once to SearchAndDestroy that atheism is one of the values of Communism.
 
Quote Religion was defined as an instrument to control the people by a few.
No. What people get controlled by a hermit?
 
Quote There are no extremist atheists, that's an invention.
Sure, there was no Holocaust, no genocide in Rwanda, Elvis lives, etc.
 
Quote Priests, intellectuals (atheists among them) were killed by the communists not because their religion but because their oposition to the regime. And communists were also zapping eachother in the struggle for power.
Sure, the Communists killed many people, including Communists, including atheists. But what you fail to realize is that among their deeds the Communists launched campains against the religious, against the non-atheists, where the victims fell simply for their belief. I repeat, I provided scholarly sources to back this up. Without alternative sources, you'll be simply in denial.
 
Quote And I do know of churches that have been razed to build blocks. Were people lived. And with decent costs.
How many people lived in People's House (largest administrative building in Europe, second largest administrative building in the world) for which 2 neighbourhoods where demolished, with some ~20 churches/synagogues and some tens of thousands of homes? Spare me of the naivities of the Communist nostalgy! 
 
Quote Since I lived and live here I don't need them
And what's your competency in describing the Church as functional? I also lived that period, my grand-father was even a priest, but I am not bringing testimonies from my experience, I resume myself to scholarship.
 
Quote Haven't you heard of the scandals related to the cooperations of the religious leaders with the Security? 
You obviously haven't read neither the report, nor the link I provided, where the infiltration of the Church was one of the main objectives of their anti-religious campaign. What's more interesting that this proves the Church was not functional. It's so easy to have opinions, but it's so hard to have an argument.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2008 at 12:53
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Quote Chilbudios, the report in question is not a collection of lies, I never said that. The wrong part is that it only focuses on the bad things. One can select only the proper documents and elaborate a report that would present the Third Reich as being a good society.
Cezar, what was good? That people were literate but indoctrinated? That the economy moved from agrarian to industrial but was falling apart (eating more than it produced)? And killing and torturing millions of people (it was accused of genocide) is an action which hardly can receive any justification.
Indoctrination was by far not effective. It worked though and generated the political oligarchy. Education of the people is something bad?!? Free acces to education up to the highest levels? Sure, the party was entangled with every aspect of the life so any work must have been "wraped up" so that the authorities don't get sensitive. Like if other societies work otherwise.
Handling the economy was not a strong point of the communists, I agree with you. But what does that has to do with atheism, I don't know.
And I don't remind to have said that genocide is justified. Do you?
Quote
Quote And crimes were not commited in the name of atheism.
There were episodes which were only about atheism and religious belief. You can say they were part of a larger plan of the Communist authorities but nothing can change there were crimes and abuses commited for the single reason their victims were not atheists.
Here we go again. You do have an obsession. Those victims were not non-atheists they were anti communists, enemy of the state, etc. There is no single case in which the religion all by itself is the reason for a persecution. Only associated with so called "anti-communist" activities. So indeed, a person who declares that he believes and thus he cannot accept communism would certainly be slammed. And those who just say openly that they believe will be persecuted, too. If one "behaves" on the other hand, he has no trouble from the authorities. I went to church many times as a child, in my grandparents village. I never went in my hometown. My parents, both christians, were also teachers. They were not supposed to be seen in a church. So they went to church, but not at home.
Quote  
Quote You make a huge mistake if you think communism as equal to atheism.
I've said at least twice, once to you, once to SearchAndDestroy that atheism is one of the values of Communism.
But you keep on mistaking one for another.[/quote]
 
Quote Religion was defined as an instrument to control the people by a few.
No. What people get controlled by a hermit?[/quote] Don't ask silly questions. You know what religion is in communist ideology, don't you? And, many concur on this oppinion. Religion is indeed a mass handling tool.
Quote  
Quote There are no extremist atheists, that's an invention.
Sure, there was no Holocaust, no genocide in Rwanda, Elvis lives, etc.
Bring a documented example of atheist extremism. The Holocaust has more to do with religion than with atheism. As for Rwanda and Elvis, maybe you know something I don't
Quote  
Quote Priests, intellectuals (atheists among them) were killed by the communists not because their religion but because their oposition to the regime. And communists were also zapping eachother in the struggle for power.
Sure, the Communists killed many people, including Communists, including atheists. But what you fail to realize is that among their deeds the Communists launched campains against the religious, against the non-atheists, where the victims fell simply for their belief. I repeat, I provided scholarly sources to back this up. Without alternative sources, you'll be simply in denial.
Then I'm living in denial. Your "scholarly sources" are contested. The report you called in is, I repeat, a worthy document. But it's not complete. It is focused only on retrieving data regarding "the dark side". It has its value, its a good thing but it's not a representation of what life was in Romania by then. And, unfortunately, it is designed to be used for propaganda, so inherently, I look upon only trying to avoid extremes. And, BTW, what campaign was launched against non-atheists?
Quote  
Quote And I do know of churches that have been razed to build blocks. Were people lived. And with decent costs.
How many people lived in People's House (largest administrative building in Europe, second largest administrative building in the world) for which 2 neighbourhoods where demolished, with some ~20 churches/synagogues and some tens of thousands of homes? Spare me of the naivities of the Communist nostalgy! 
Spare yourself of it. I'm not nostalgic, I hated those times. But a fact is a fact. There were more houses, decent ones ane affordable, built for people in those times. I'm living the hardship of nowadays when buying a two room minuscule apartment is 60000 euro. Your example is an exception. And indeed it's a megalomaniac dream(nightmare) but the fact is that building places to live was something those nasty communists/atheists were doing.
Quote  
Quote Since I lived and live here I don't need them
And what's your competency in describing the Church as functional? I also lived that period, my grand-father was even a priest, but I am not bringing testimonies from my experience, I resume myself to scholarship.
 
Quote Haven't you heard of the scandals related to the cooperations of the religious leaders with the Security? 
You obviously haven't read neither the report, nor the link I provided, where the infiltration of the Church was one of the main objectives of their anti-religious campaign. What's more interesting that this proves the Church was not functional. It's so easy to have opinions, but it's so hard to have an argument.
Actually it proves that the communists were right: The Church is a good mass handling tool. It worked fine and it still does its job. Especially when it comes to convince someone that personal testimony is worthless since sholarship says otherwise. Why do you fear atheists/atheism, Chilbudios? Maybe because they also provide scholarship.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[/QUOTE]


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2008 at 14:03
Quote That's your opinion but there were regimes, organizations, etc. which attempted to force all people to hold the same belief(s).
But I'm sure they were unseccessful. People want to believe in something usually if they had a belief before. Usually it's a common goal which all religions and organizations have. In the case of Communism, it'd be Christianity being replaced with the ideas and philosophies of Communisim. Not atheism because it's a definition of whether a person believes in a god or not, if anything they'd probably become agnostic.
Quote However, if you call for ending organized religion but you don't care that people are actually religious that will be a discriminatory and harmful action (there will still be people believing, only that they will not be allowed to express themselves).
I agree 100%. Thats pretty much what I said, or atleast tried to sayLOL. I'll try to word my sentences.
Quote Actually I have used throughoutly the term "militant atheism" (in Communism it was called "scientific atheism").
Despite what the Communist call it, I still disagree with it. I believe a person of Faith is a believer and a person without Faith in a god is a Atheist. Nothing more and nothing less. When a doctrine is added to these two catagories you can get a Christian for believers and if you want to stretch it then you can call Communism's Secular Politics and views atheistic in nature.
 
What I'm saying is is athiest are always bunched up in one catagory for political movements when most athiest don't even share a common view but do have a common definition which means one thing. To speak of Communism which puts forth the idea of a classless system and a front to Capitalism more then an attack on religion, and to say that represents athiest seems wrong to me. It's a political system that champions the idea of working for the working force and common good of the people, and getting rid of the that any is superior then anyone else. When you read up on communism at glance, you wouldn't think it had secular views. It's when you study that you find this out, and even then you learn that it could never get rid of Religion, even in public life. The Russian Orthadox Church always remained from what I understand in Communist Russia.


-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2008 at 14:15
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

Indoctrination was by far not effective. It worked though and generated the political oligarchy. Education of the people is something bad?!? Free acces to education up to the highest levels? Sure, the party was entangled with every aspect of the life so any work must have been "wraped up" so that the authorities don't get sensitive. Like if other societies work otherwise.
Handling the economy was not a strong point of the communists, I agree with you. But what does that has to do with atheism, I don't know.
And I don't remind to have said that genocide is justified. Do you?
I was merely showing that whatever "goods" Communist regimes produced (you were complaining that report only focused on its "bad" deeds) it were only steps to greater "bads" and if we enlarge the perspective we notice that other contemporary regimes brought that "goods" anyway (e.g. literacy and free education), therefore there's absolutely nothing to value the Communist regimes for.
 
Quote Here we go again. You do have an obsession. Those victims were not non-atheists they were anti communists, enemy of the state, etc. There is no single case in which the religion all by itself is the reason for a persecution.
You're fantasizing. My "obsession" is fueled by scholarly sources which claim religion by itself was sometimes a source for persecution.  The sources I've brought clearly illustrate campaigns whose solely purpose was to fight against religion (not against the bourgeoise and other types of "enemies of the state").
 
Quote But you keep on mistaking one for another.
  Only a low level of understanding can make one conclude such a thing. Maybe you should spend more time understanding my points instead of rushing in denying them.
 
Quote Don't ask silly questions. You know what religion is in communist ideology, don't you? And, many concur on this oppinion. Religion is indeed a mass handling tool.
Many scholars of religion (as a Romanian you should have read Eliade) disagree with that. Religion can be a mass handling tool, but it's not by definition - there's a variety of religions and religious manifestations out there.
 
Quote Bring a documented example of atheist extremism. 
I've already brought several, some you ignored, some you dismissed it as "the wrong part is that it focuses on the bad things".
 
Quote Then I'm living in denial. Your "scholarly sources" are contested. The report you called in is, I repeat, a worthy document. But it's not complete. It is focused only on retrieving data regarding "the dark side". It has its value, its a good thing but it's not a representation of what life was in Romania by then. And, unfortunately, it is designed to be used for propaganda, so inherently, I look upon only trying to avoid extremes. And, BTW, what campaign was launched against non-atheists?
You speak of contested sources yet you have not other contestation but yours. You claim you avoid extremes yet you live in one. I've already mentioned campaigns, should I repeat it only because you stubbornly refused to read what I was writing?
 
Quote Spare yourself of it. I'm not nostalgic, I hated those times. But a fact is a fact. There were more houses, decent ones ane affordable, built for people in those times. I'm living the hardship of nowadays when buying a two room minuscule apartment is 60000 euro. Your example is an exception. And indeed it's a megalomaniac dream(nightmare) but the fact is that building places to live was something those nasty communists/atheists were doing.
I believe such a paragraph could be written by one who:
a) didn't live that epoch
b) was too little to rememember anything
c) has serious mental problems.
I honestly hope you're in case b). Especially in the late '70s and the '80s, those apartments were usually in some grayish neighbourhoods of blocks (no vegetation), with basements infested of rats, little space (which earned them the nickname of "matchboxes"), with no heat and warm water (especially in winter times), with electricity often lacking (living in an apartament in candlelight or with gas lamps is not a pleasure, believe me), and I'm not talking about the apartments from blocks dedicated to single persons, which usually consisted of one sordid room and some time the toilet was in the main hall of the building, one for each floor. Considering we had to pay for that instead of being paid for living in such conditions, there was nothing decent in that. Living in those conditions doesn't worth a single eurocent!
 
Quote Actually it proves that the communists were right: The Church is a good mass handling tool. It worked fine and it still does its job. Especially when it comes to convince someone that personal testimony is worthless since sholarship says otherwise. Why do you fear atheists/atheism, Chilbudios? Maybe because they also provide scholarship.
 I declared on some other thread that I'm no believer. Yet, for you atheism = grudge against religion (thus you're close to the category of militant atheism I was talking about), for me atheism is a philosophical stance which doesn't stop me to be balanced in opinions or even sympathetic towards religion (if and when it's worth).
Church might be a mass handling tool (though sometime a beneficial one, see the average village life, for instance), religion is not. And it did not the job, for instance, through confessions back then you could have a file which could have brought you at least troubles, if not torture, prison or assassination.
Your personal testimony is worthless mainly because you have no perspective. Your little hometown with two churches (which possibly you experienced it as a small kid) is hardly a ground for serious discussion. If you do not have proper scholarly materials I do not think you even know how the Church works as an institution or what was the relation between the Church and the Communist regime. So what's left to talk about?
 


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2008 at 14:32
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy SearchAndDestroy wrote:

But I'm sure they were unseccessful. People want to believe in something usually if they had a belief before. Usually it's a common goal which all religions and organizations have. In the case of Communism, it'd be Christianity being replaced with the ideas and philosophies of Communisim. Not atheism because it's a definition of whether a person believes in a god or not, if anything they'd probably become agnostic.
You're right, they were largely unsuccesful. That's the reason for why the Churches were infiltrated by agents, that's the reason for why in many parts of the Eastern Europe, after the fall of the Communist regimes, the religious extremism has risen. Communism didn't fight solely against Christianity but against all religions and philosophies it regarded incompatible. The atheist foundation of the Communist ideologies was estabilished by Marx himself and for many of his followers, the struggle to bring all the people to this atheistic mindset was characteristic. On the other hand, the pragmatical reason is that once you strip a person of his values you can easily teach him whatever doctrine you want.
 
Quote Despite what the Communist call it, I still disagree with it. I believe a person of Faith is a believer and a person without Faith in a god is a Atheist. Nothing more and nothing less. When a doctrine is added to these two catagories you can get a Christian for believers and if you want to stretch it then you can call Communism's Secular Politics and views atheistic in nature.
Terms like 'atheism' or 'military atheism' are still relatively widespread in describing this aggresive flavour of atheism. You can browse Google Books and note there were plenty of serious materials written on religion and atheism in the Communist USSR and its satelites. And not only in this context, for instance, Richard Dawkins, in his books characterizes himself as atheist and at the same time writes materials and expressed his wish in converting people to his belief. In one interview he even said he'd like the atheists to estabilish a political view of their own for the better of the world (or something like that, if I'll find that interview I'll give you the exact quote).
 
 


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2008 at 14:51
Quote On the other hand, the pragmatical reason is that once you strip a person of his values you can easily teach him whatever doctrine you want.
Makes sense, brainwashing perople in the idea of your doctrine right? Changing one strong belief for another.
Quote And not only in this context, for instance, Richard Dawkins, in his books characterizes himself as atheist and at the same time writes materials and expressed his wish in converting people to his belief. In one interview he even said he'd like the atheists to estabilish a political view of their own for the better of the world (or something like that, if I'll find that interview I'll give you the exact quote).
I never liked that guy. He seems to be creating a doctrine then if he wants to start a group with a common view. And that group may fall under the catagory of athiest, but it won't represent us by large.
What I'm saying is that when I discuss Christianity, I don't talk of all believers, because they have different doctrines. Shamanism and Christianity are very different in most cases and the most they have incommon is that they share the view point of a supernatural being that oversees them. And in this case, one may have more supernatural beings. So you can't discuss them both.
 
Though I will admit I'm on a personal crusade to prove that athiest can't be catagorized in one group when it comes to point of views. I don't feel any kinship with other athiests. Their view points are there's and mine are mine. I honestly wish a new definition can be created to describe someone that doesn't believe in a supernatural being, because athiest have such a bad name now. As an example, in the US Athiests are looked on as the most dangerous of people. They are the smallest minority I believe and I'm sure most people have never met one and if they had, they probably never knew or would know.


-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2008 at 08:28
Chilbudios, maybe the value of the communist regimes was that they showed they are not functional. The fact remains that there were some social issues in Romania that were better handled in that regime. That doesn't make communism better it just makes the post communist regime bad.
Certainly, in some cases religion was the pretext of persecutions. But it wasn't a total war. Therefore the communist were not militant atheists. Off course, since one of their goals was to achieve "scientific atheism", they were constantly negating the religion. But they were communists not just atheists. If you wish, militant atheism is a piece of militant communism.
Eliade doesn't negate the fact that religion can be a tool. The fact that scholars view may differ is not the point I was making. I stated that communists defined religion as such so they were acting acordingly. Therefore their acts should be regarded as communist extremism not atheist extremism.
Chilbudios some is not all. There were indeed some dubious blocks, matcboxes as you called them but some not all. And maybe before stating something about my age you should have checked my profile, my birthday is public.
I like to consider myself an agnostic. My "grudge against religion" comes from the fact that religious institutions or structures, like the Romanian Orthodox Church depict themselves as innocent victims of persecutions from someone. As a state institution ROC should at least be decent enough and keep quiet about it. The victims or persecutions, members of the clergy should be praised not the whole structure.
The fact is that ROC was used by the party to maintain control over the people. It's not nice indeed, according to the declared role of the church, but it's a fact you to seem to be aware of. So the church can be used as mass handling tool. And in that stance it works.
I respect everyone in what they choose to believe or not. But I don't think that being passive when witnessing religion based attacks against freedom of mind is the proper attitude. I've read Richard Dawkins, his book was published at the end of 2007 here. It's interesting how the Romanian title sounds: "Himera credintei in Dumnezeu". You seem to not have forgotten Romanian so I guess you realize that it's quite different from the original. Anyway, I agree with him about some aspects and one is that passivity from the agnostics or atheists is not proper. Not active propaganda against religion, don't mistake me. I just won't stand quiet when confronted with militant religion.
 
*Almost forgot - for those who don't know Romanian - the retranslation of RD's book title: "The God's Faith Chimaera". Maybe Chilbudios would make  a better translation.
 


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2008 at 16:52
Cezar, your age makes you no service, on the contrary. Your denial has little excuses outside your own array of problems which ultimately is rooted in you (like I've suggested in my previous reply to you).
You were saying (and insisting, though with less self-confidence: "There were indeed some dubious blocks [...] but some not all") about a decent life in Communist apartments and the "good" brought by Communists giving people places to live in. Let me give you few scholarly excerpts about such cases.
 
On systematization:

In 1988, Ceauşescu declared the programme of urban systematization will succesfully end in 1990. If by then the demolitions were performed rather in the Old Kingdom cities, generally with no urban infrastructure, in the phase from the late 1980 massive destructions started even in relatively well-conserved historical cities like  Sighişoara or Sibiu.
In the same speech, the president of Romania decreed the generalized and accelerated application of rural systematization, discussed since 1967 and legalized in 1974.
[...]
The final phase of this programme, presented in 1988, was designed in three stages running until 2000 (1990-1995-2000). The programme prescribed the radical change of the entire rural habitat, where still 48.1% of the population lived. In this last phase, Ceauşescu mentioned the destruction of 7-8,000 villages from the ~13,000 existent ones. The inhabitants of the destroyed villages should have been moved to the existent ones which in turn would have been rebuilt with blocks and collective buildings, thus the inhabited land area would have been minimal. Among these "new villages", 558 were designated to be transformed into "agro-industrial" centers. Several such centers and systematized villages were raised around Bucharest, in the Agrarian Sector Ilfov, where the operation started in 1985 and in Giurgiu district. In these areas, several settlements were razed from the map: Buda, Dimieni, Vlădiceasca, Ordoreanu, Coteni, Podul Ilfovului. Even according to the official press presenting them for a success, most new built apartments had no modern facitilies: no running water, no sewerage, the common toilets were in the yard, there was a single kitchen per floor. Actually the peasants forced to live in these buildings were constrained to much inferior living conditions compared to what they had before. Worse was that losing the houses and the economic independence they still had (land in use, stables, vegetable gardens, etc.), they lost their own identity: their ancestral environment and their traditional community.
(Vladimir Tismăneanu et al., Final Report, 2006, pp. 613-614, my translation)
 
On the living conditions in the apartments (especially in the '80s):
 
In 16 February 1987, a numerous group of students from Iaşi manifested against the lack of heat, electricity and potable water from student hostels. Tereza Culianu-Petrescu remembers that the protestermanifested: "We need light to study and water to wash ourselves!". (Vladimir Tismăneanu et al., Final Report, 2006, p. 371, n. 33, my translation)
 
the Party leadership and mainly Nicolae Ceauşescu decreed with serious consequences in the daily life of Romanian citizens: an artificial, state-organized poverty, the drastic reduction of the gas consumption and forcing the population to live in unbearable conditions, sometimes under 10 degrees Celsius. To paraphrase the title of an essay of the dissident writer Dorin Tudoran, Romania in those years was dominated by hunger, cold and fear. (Vladimir Tismăneanu et al., Final Report, 2006, p. 424, my translation)
 
but not only this report you don't like says it, let's check what others have to say about this:
 
new cuts in electricity and gas consumption norms were anounced in November 1987. In January 1988, when Ceauşescu turned seventy, Romania was dominated by malaise, anguish and deep frustration. (Vladimir Tismăneanu, Stalinism for All Seasons: A political history of Romanian Communism, 2003, p. 227)
 
A moment of epiphany during my fieldwork in the disastrous mid-1980s when Romania was about the last socialist country anyone would want to be in, led me to wonder at the root of the fascination. with the endnote That winter was an unusually cold one [...] heat was cut back in all apartment buildings, electricity was likewise curtailed [...] these policies made life in Romania fairly nasty. (Katherine Verdery, What was Socialism and what comes next?, 1996, p. 8)
 
Ceauşescu [...] destroyed individual privacy, keeping people busy with work and desperate hunts for food, clothing, and all the other basic necessities. Later he deprived Romanians of heat, electricity, and water. Orwell's narratives seem naive compared to what Romania endured. (Lidia Vianu, Censorship in Romania, 1998, p. VIII)
 
Toward the end of his regime, despite evident problems, including the shortage of raw materials, Ceauşescu stubbornly persisted with his centralized, heavy-industrial model. Romania's external debt was eliminated, with a concomitant increase in popular misery. During Ceauşescu last years food was rationed and cities regularly went without electricity and gas. (Bernard A. Cook, Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia, 2001, p. 657)
 
and what was left behind the Communist "standards of decent living":
 
While the West has been modernized rapidly and profoundly in the course of the last half-century, Communism has left  behind an unexpectedly large number of areas which have scarcely been touched by modernity, despite its intense industrialization programme (or perhaps precisely because of this programme, which resulted in an artificial industrial sector unable to bring the rest of the society along with it). [...] Outside the capital and a few large cities, hot water is a rarity in blocks of flats. (Lucian Boia, Romania: Borderland of Europe, 2001, p. 181)
 
I think someone should warn all these scholars that they should re-edit their works with a major correction: all Romania but Cezar's small home town was in misery.
 
Now on your other aberrant claims:
 
There were no social issues in Romania handled better by that regime for the simple reason that regime was quasi-indiferent to the plight of the people (it only attempted to avoid revolts, nothing more). The Romanian post-Communist regime is infinitely better. You were complaining about high prices for houses - how comes is so hard to find a house then in a large Romanian city today, especially in Bucharest? Do you know the basic principle of request and offer? That's why prices are high, Cezar, because people still buy. If you are poor, go to some isolated country side, with ~1-2,000 euro you can still get an adobe and some 1-2 hectares around it - a garden, a small orchard, a yard, stables, etc.
 
Communists were militant atheists, period. Your sophisms only betray dogmatism. I've already provided sources (the book of mrs. Knox, the Final Report) stating it as clearly as possible (e.g. about USSR: The regime dedicated a large amount of energy to eradicating religion: an estimated 6 million people were involved in the atheist propaganda in the early 1970s. - a regime investing a large effort in atheist propaganda how can be called???). I'm not sure to what point serves that they were also communists beside atheists, since we talk about atheist propaganda and persecution against religion. And yes, it was total war, it was the international pressure and the control they needed over masses - a radical, massive and visible measure would have created turmoil, which stopped them. Richard Felix Staar said it best in his Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, 4th ed., 1982, p. 217: As in other communist-ruled lands, the churches in Romania are allowed to exist as a temporary evil.)
 
Of course Eliade does not negate the fact that religion can be a tool, but he says the religion is not a tool, is not defined to be a tool. Anything can be used as a tool, including atheism (as proven in this thread).
 
That Church was dysfunctional is so obvious that your comments only indicate that your grudge against religion is rather irrational hate than an argumented stance. Let me try it again: by confession to a priest you could get secret police file. As a priest by teaching in your parish about some evanghelical values you could get imprisoned. Let's go back to Starr, as he dedicates a small chapter to this issue (pp. 217-219): The communist regime assumed control of all the churches in 1945 and 1948. This was achieved by arrogating to the government all authority over finances, property, and high-level administration; placing in key positions clergy who were subservient to the ruling party and severing ties with church organizations in foreign countries. [...] During 1962 the Holy See announced that of the fourteen Catholic archbishops and bishops in Romania, all but one were under arrest. Three years later it was reported that four of the five Catholic bishops remaining in the country had died in prison.
Legislation since 4 August 1948 had required that all denominations provide the regime's Department of Religious Affairs with inventories of their assets and revenues and athat all clergy take an oath of allegiance to the government, pledging to obey and help enforce laws and to defend the state against all enemies. Besides controlling the purse strings and the appointment of personnel in all churches, the Department of Religious Affairs designated the extent and type of catechism that may be taught under church sponsorship. [...] Apart from such direct techiques, the regime also applies indirect methods to reduce the influence of the churches. Attendance at religious services is not forbidden by law, but mass organizations such as the Union of Communist Youth and the Pioneers schedule activities on Sundays and religious holidays (Easter and Christmas are regular working days in Romania) to make church attendance difficult. [...] Although the constitution, in Article 30, guarantees freedom of
religion, in practice it is systematically repressed. [...] Religious groups frequently protest against the regime's stringent control over their activities, but do not have the influence of the Catholic church in Poland or the cohesion of the Czechoslovak priests and, therefore, yield to the regime tactics. In October 1980, five Protestants were arrested for smuggling Romanian- and Russian-language bibles into the country. There were reports that two of them had died, one by suicide and the other after a beating by security police. Again, I ask you, what is functional in all these?
 


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 07:36

Right, Chilbudios, what will you call me now, a retarded? Let's drop the subject of the "good parts" of the Communist regime, you simply are far to educated for me to be able to really make you understand what I'm pointing at. Nice translation from the Tismaneanu report. BTW, I've heard what you said at "Europa Libera" in 1987: "Slobozia este singurul oras din sud estul Europei unde se mai traieste bine" -"Slobozia is the only town in SE Europe where living is good". Never mind, the post communist regimes are indeed infinitely better, only I seem to have forgot that. Though I did stated that I hated the former regime, didn't I? I was delirious off course, in fact I'm red to the bone. I never realized that in fact the communists were militant atheists. I'm glad you showed me that being an atheist leads to being a communist. It's so simple and I never grasped that thing. To think that atheism was only an accessory for communist to yield power, how stupid of me. Off course you're right. They were atheists disguised as communists and all the crimes they did were in the name of the atheist ideology.

And the poor Church. Oh, how silly of me. I never realized that the Church during communism was another institution. It had nothing to do with the pure institution that is now and was before 1947. It was communist, even atheist. It wasn't militant atheist. And it didn't worked, off course.


Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 07:58
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy SearchAndDestroy wrote:

Quote If there were horrible actions whose purpose was to transform forcefully the society into an atheistic one, because they viewed the religious beliefs as "retrograde", "obscurantist", etc., I think they were done in the name of the atheism, in order for atheism to be the only allowed stance.
You can make a society SECULAR, and a doctrine can call for ending organized religion. But you can't make everyone athiest because thats in their mind. You can't force me into a believer like I can't force someone into becoming an athiest.
 
I think part of the problem between your arguement and mine is that our definition differs slightly. I view athiest meaning a definition of a person who don't have a belief in something supernatural, and nothing more then that. And I'd describe a political doctrine like Communism as pushing a secular idea or being secularly motivated. Why? Because I see no kinship with other athiest and don't think their should be a reason to group us. All of us have different ideas unless following a common doctrine, which Atheism doesn't have.
 
We always discuss Muslims and Christians in different threads. So I don't understand how we can talk about Atheist in one thread. Because outside of us not believing in a god, we nothing else in common.


True. Atheists are not a quantifiable demographic. There are no shared value systems, no political parties in place, few organizations, no centralized ideological hierarchy...


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 13:46
Originally posted by Search and Destroy Search and Destroy wrote:

We always discuss Muslims and Christians in different threads. So I don't understand how we can talk about Atheist in one thread. Because outside of us not believing in a god, we nothing else in common.
 
Originally posted by Brian J Checco Brian J Checco wrote:

True. Atheists are not a quantifiable demographic. There are no shared value systems, no political parties in place, few organizations, no centralized ideological hierarchy...
 
I agree with both of you, in a certain sense. One cannot speak of atheists in the same way as one speaks of members of an "organized religion", for precisely the reasons Brian cited (although there have been some efforts recently to establish a central ideology). Still, I think it is fair to discuss "atheists" in a thread by virtue of the fact that the general term allows us to speak to the views of those who hold the ideology. I think the difference is one of degree (the "how" of the assertion), not of kind (the "what" of the assertion). We could certainly break the general group down further, by specific philosophical leanings, just as we could separate Christians into Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic categories. That is not to say that there are not fundamental differences, only that we can speak of things in either general or specific terms.
 
-Akolouthos
 
 


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 14:42

These last opinions are partly true, but no entirely.

Though philosophically atheism is composed from one single belief, in practice most atheists (if not all) share several common beliefs. For instance, you cannot be atheist and claim the Bible is literally true (thus, automatically, atheism means the Bible is literally false). Beyond that there are operative ways to divide this amorphous crowd of atheists. For instance, some believe all people should share their belief (as the only reasonable belief to have), some don't. Thus, we can have a common body of beliefs shared by those which were labeled here as "militant atheists", a body of beliefs which amounts to a doctrine and which can be dangerous (as I have tried to point out). Not even all Christians (not even all those from one Christian branch) do not share the same beliefs, yet we can find such a body of beliefs and group them together.
 
 


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 14:51

It seems that the conclusion should be that there are militant atheists but ther is no militant atheism.



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 15:08
I'm not saying you're a retard, I'm saying that from what you have exposed here you have some issues with your past in the Communist regime for some reason (e.g. material frustration nowadays) you idealize it in an irrational way. The other options are that you do not have a good memory of the period or even that for some reason you have been dishonest in this discussion. So making out of your own person a witness, you fail to provide a reliable testimony, moreover that I kept bringing serious sources to prove the contrary. Your stance is like holding the Earth is flat or the milk is black. Is against all evidences (and I or anyone reading this is supposed to take your word for it).
 
Quote I've heard what you said at "Europa Libera" in 1987
I've said nothing public before 1989, so it couldn't be me. But whoever he/she was, it doesn't prove any point, as you cannot prove your testimony is reliable (see the paragraph above). The incompatibility between that quote and "Romania in those years was dominated by hunger, cold and fear" and "Romania was about the last socialist country anyone would want to be in" is so obvious and the latter testimonies are supporting each other that is a huge burden of proof for those asserting the contrary.
 
I haven't noticed your hate of the ex-regime so far in this discussion, only a slippery discourse - "it was bad, but not that bad". You agreed there were atrocities but you weren't outraged by them (those subhuman living conditions were labeled as "dubious"), you looked to find a "good" side of them (living with decent costs) - maybe I'm trusting too much what you have said so far, please redefine your position if so.
 
I also haven't said that being an atheist leads one to be a communist, only that in Communism regimes there was a strong militant atheist movement (organizations, campaigns, propaganda, etc.). Eventually we can add that being a communist-by-the-book (after the writings of Marx and Lenin) requires atheism as one of the beliefs. However there are lots of atheists which are not communists, are a lot of atheists which are not even struggling to impose their beliefs. But I was not talking about them.
 
On Church I think I proved quite clearly what was the situation. Your misunderstandings do not count as arguments.
 
Quote

It seems that the conclusion should be that there are militant atheists but ther is no militant atheism.

Your conclusion, perhaps. It's so outstretched I don't even wonder what was the reasoning behind it.



Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 15:18
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

It seems that the conclusion should be that there are militant atheists but ther is no militant atheism.

 
I don't really see how that follows...
 
By virtue of the fact that there are militant atheists, we may say that there is "militant atheism"; the fact that people hold to a belief is evidence of its existence, though we could qualify it further, of course.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 15:20
Whether religion or atheism causes the most violence is irrelevant; what's relevant is the fact that it is empirically impossible to verify the existence of God and similar beings without first discarding the use of proper deductive method, the very basis of all knowledge.
 
Militant atheism is all for the better. Ideally it will convince people that it is possible to live a fulfilling life without building it on ideas that, even if commendable, are almost certainly false.


-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 15:25
Reginmund, your second paragraph is actually one of my points. The Communists thought that they will convince people that is possible to live a life without gods and just living in a world of "science" and "equality" (the intentions of the 19th century philosophers were probably noble, but you know what they say about hell). They failed miserably. I wonder why anyone should accept other such experiments.


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 15:28
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Whether religion or atheism causes the most violence is irrelevant; what's relevant is the fact that it is empirically impossible to verify the existence of God and similar beings without first discarding the use of proper deductive method, the very basis of all knowledge.
 
Oh come now, Reginmund. LOL
 
If the "proper deductive method" (in which specific manner, I wonder?) is "the very basis for all knowledge", then what of conclusions derived from inductive reasoning? Once again the question arises, albeit in a different context: generals or particulars?
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 16:04
Quote Still, I think it is fair to discuss "atheists" in a thread by virtue of the fact that the general term allows us to speak to the views of those who hold the ideology.
The one name that constantly pops up when speaking of "Militant Atheism" though is Communism. A Political system, and if this is the strongest arguement for militant atheism, then why not just discuss Communism and it's effects on religion? Because the only people pushing the definition in this thread are believers, and all the athiest in the thread don't share anything in common with Communism really and want to be distanced from it. It's obvious that Communisms secular views are more about getting rid of the idea of organized religion or any group that can threaten it, then it is about being athiest. You may be able to make someone agnostic which is a stretch, but you can never turn someone into a athiest. Having believed in a god at one time in the past and being athiest now was something that had no outside influence, it was a conclusion I made myself.
In other wrods, Communist regimes can brainwash someone into believing their system is right because they have something of substance to follow, but I can't say I've seen anyone truely become athiest through someone else talking about it. Atheism is a yes or no to one question, is there a god, religion is a life style that you can choose to follow, much like a political system. Idealogies go against each other, ex: Communism vs Christianity. Atheism vs Believer/Of Faith is a definition of your stance.
Quote For instance, you cannot be atheist and claim the Bible is literally true (thus, automatically, atheism means the Bible is literally false
This sort of seems like a cop out to me. Ofcourse a athiest doesn't believe it literally true, how can we say otherwise? But it's nothing added to us having something in common. You'd be creating a paradox by saying "No I don't believe in the Christian god, but yes I fully believe in the bible!". Thats a given and not really a choice, it's a impossiblity and a bad example of trying to show athiests have more incommon then just the idea of not believing in the supernatural. The two go hand in hand!
 A good example would be saying that two athiest believe all religions should be abolished. It's something that would represent a common idea that is not a must in being a athiest. That would be a definition of a ideology starting, and from that it would cause a group to be formed, but does not represent all athiest, which means, you can't once again group us, because again atheism represents a definition.
Quote
Originally posted by Cezar

It seems that the conclusion should be that there are militant atheists but ther is no militant atheism.

 
I don't really see how that follows...
 
By virtue of the fact that there are militant atheists, we
I think it makes perfect sense. Let me reverse the role then. What if we always spoke of "Militant Believers"? Everytime the KKK did something bad, and they do call themselves a Christian organization, do you think most Christians and even other religions would appreciate them only being refered to as a Militant group of Believers?  I mean, I have seen people get up set when someone says religion does more harm to civilization, I see it all the time. And that a sweeping accusation just like this is. You say Militant Athiest and you only think of athiest. It's part of the reason that we are the most untrusted group of people in the United States. Communism and Athiest have been so closely tied together due to past campaigns against Communism, that now people in the US automaticly assocciate atheism with bad. But when you speak of a group of people saying they are religious, the first thing people of religious background ask, "Of what religion were they?", and even then if it's not their religion, they may insult them. You only have to look on the news or speak to a Christian about Muslims and vice versa and they say how different they are or go to insults. They don't make the connection that they are related, but look at differences.
 
So why can people of religion talk of distinctions between each other? But atheism and communism have to be linked for example? Because of this, I don't even like to be called a athiest.


-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 16:13
Search,
 
I will simply note that I said nothing about communism here. Since you brought it up, though, one can hardly separate religion from the persecution of Russian Christians under the Communists.
 
As for my second quote, of which you represented half, your answer has naught to do with the question. Once again, I said nothing about communism. The point stands: By virtue of the fact that there are militant atheists, there is such a thing as militant atheism. The same logic holds for any system of belief; this does not mean that all atheists are militant any more than the application of the term "militant Christian" would designate all Christians as such.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 16:25
Quote I will simply note that I said nothing about communism here. Since you brought it up, though, one can hardly separate religion from the persecution of Russian Christians under the Communists.
I was going with the topic that has been discussed these few past pages and it's exactly what I'm trying to explain. If you want to substitute another word for communism, thats fine, but I'm discussing the history and idea behind more then the idea of Communism. Like I said, Communism and Atheism are always linked and has given a strong perception on the idea of atheism with untrust that lasts to this day.
Quote "militant Christian" would designate all Christians as such.
Yet people still get upset about that designation. When the IRA is discussed, everyone automaticly says it's more to do with politics then religion(which let me say I agree, I've just seen it argued about them being motivated with the idea of protestants vs catholics). Same with Militant Muslims, Muslims on our forum say that it's more political and has nothing to do with Islam.
But Militant Atheism, again, the only name I ever seen brought up as a true example is Communism, and maybe not by you, but I haven't seen another true organization yet that can be truely termed as "Militant". 


-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 16:34
Originally posted by Search and Destroy Search and Destroy wrote:

Yet people still get upset about that designation. When the IRA is discussed, everyone automaticly says it's more to do with politics then religion(which let me say I agree, I've just seen it argued about them being motivated with the idea of protestants vs catholics). Same with Militant Muslims, Muslims on our forum say that it's more political and has nothing to do with Islam.
But Militant Atheism, again, the only name I ever seen brought up as a true example is Communism, and maybe not by you, but I haven't seen another true organization yet that can be truely termed as "Militant". 
 
Yes, and the fact that there are a variety of opinions begs that we think about them, and try to come up with the best analysis of each situation as possible. I'll go with the Christian example:
 
In my opinion, the IRA is motivated by militant Catholicism a bit more than the Bolsheviks were motivated by militant atheism. The IRA's militant Catholicism has much to do with a series of political and cultural factors that stem from centuries of conflict between the Irish and English. In this sense -- and perhaps in others -- we may call them anti-Catholic.
 
This is what we must do; we must think. Simply throwing up our hands and saying "There are many opinions," or "Well, you guys do it too," is not a viable option. As for the term "militant", it is simply the designation that we choose to apply to a particular degree of fervor -- and often recklessness -- exhibited by an individual or group which holds a particular set of beliefs.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 17:04
Quote Yes, and the fact that there are a variety of opinions begs that we think about them,
Precisely what I've been saying. I'm tired of being grouped up with one ideology that has recieved this label when it can be called Communism. As you explained the IRA, you catagorired them as Catholic Militants, but if you ever were to talk about them alone it'd be IRA brought up not "Those Catholic Militants that bommbed the building".
But all I can see is one group that that comes close to getting the title of militant athiest, and I think they were more concerned with politics and economy and fighting capitalism then anything else. Hell, during WW2 Stalin supported the Russian Orthodox Church, though used it as a political device to up morale of the Russian people. But shows that it wasn't a strong athiestic ideology, I doubt the opposite would be true with the church putting their faith into a Athiest leader of some sorts.


-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 17:11
Originally posted by SearchandDestroy SearchandDestroy wrote:

Precisely what I've been saying. I'm tired of being grouped up with one ideology that has recieved this label when it can be called Communism. As you explained the IRA, you catagorired them as Catholic Militants, but if you ever were to talk about them alone it'd be IRA brought up not "Those Catholic Militants that bommbed the building".
 
Well, as I said, just because the designation "militant" is applicable to an individual atheist, or even a group, does not mean that it is applicable to all atheists. The term is used to describe a particular fervor or fanaticism. Here, we are speaking of "militant atheism", not the more garden variety sort.
 
Quote But all I can see is one group that that comes close to getting the title of militant athiest, and I think they were more concerned with politics and economy and fighting capitalism then anything else. Hell, during WW2 Stalin supported the Russian Orthodox Church, though used it as a political device to up morale of the Russian people. But shows that it wasn't a strong athiestic ideology, I doubt the opposite would be true with the church putting their faith into a Athiest leader of some sorts.
 
I doubt Stalin's support of the Church provided much consolation to the new-martyrs of Russia; thankfully, they are enjoying consolation of a much more potent sort. And no, this does not show "that it [Russian communism] wasn't a strong atheistic ideology" -- indeed, it shows nothing of the sort. It simply shows that pragmatism generally wins over ideology in the world. Stalin compromised the ideals of persecution and disenfranchisment to help save the U.S.S.R.; this stands in stark contrast to the new-martyrs of Russia, who refused to compromise eternal values to save their very lives.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 17:14
Quote This sort of seems like a cop out to me. Ofcourse a athiest doesn't believe it literally true, how can we say otherwise? But it's nothing added to us having something in common. You'd be creating a paradox by saying "No I don't believe in the Christian god, but yes I fully believe in the bible!". Thats a given and not really a choice, it's a impossiblity and a bad example of trying to show athiests have more incommon then just the idea of not believing in the supernatural. The two go hand in hand!
It's not that simple. When many atheists dismiss the religion (the supernatural, if you wish) they do not say only "I don't believe in God, hence the Bible texts are not true" they regard the Bible as invented by mortal beings (it is no one else out there to carry, even hypothetically, the responsability), that morality is not dictated by some deity, etc., it's a whole perspective which covers many things, it's not merely an abstract belief. Thus "I'm an atheist and the only thing which can be said about me is that  I do not believe in gods" is not true, though the definition of the term claims only that.
 
I honestly haven't meant to generalize what I've said of militant atheism for the atheism. I only wanted to suggest militant atheism (as most militant ideologies, including militant religious ones) is a dangerous thing using the classical example of the communism.


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 17:21
Quote Well, as I said, just because the designation "militant" is applicable to an individual atheist, or even a group, does not mean that it is applicable to all atheists. The term is used to describe a particular fervor or fanaticism. Here, we are speaking of "militant atheism", not the more garden variety sort.
True, I just haven't heard or seen a real example of it yet except one, and that one I see more of having to do with politics then anything else.
Quote I doubt Stalin's support of the Church provided much consolation to the new-martyrs of Russia; thankfully, they are enjoying consolation of a much more potent sort.
He used it more of a device to unite Russians and give a feeling of unitity and comfort from what I understand. The Churches were only supported when things looked bad if I remember correctly.
And I agree that it was ment to save the USSR, or well, gain more support of the people. It was ment to bring about hope more then anything else. But I could never see a Strong Religious government that would want to get rid of athiest look for their help later on. Reason being is they have values and ideologies that are in complete contrast to the otherwise. But to me this shows that Communism wanted to get rid of a group that it saw as a threat together, but doesn't mind asking for a groups help when needed. In otherwords, it's not after religion because it's spiritual, but because it was a group with it's own powerful leaders.
 


-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 17:31
Originally posted by SearchandDestroy SearchandDestroy wrote:

Reason being is they have values and ideologies that are in complete contrast to the otherwise. But to me this shows that Communism wanted to get rid of a group that it saw as a threat together, but doesn't mind asking for a groups help when needed. In otherwords, it's not after religion because it's spiritual, but because it was a group with it's own powerful leaders.
 
Hm. I think the analysis is fair, but I also think that some religious governments would do the same, if threatened. At the fall of Constantinople, "Can you hold a spear?" probably wasn't prefaced by "You're not one of those Latin heretics, are you?" (Although technically, as I recall, the Paleologai were Romanists themselves; you take my point, even so.) I think it has more to do with the human condition than with any particular ideology. Once again, there may be a difference of degree, but I doubt one of kind.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 17:39
Quote It's not that simple. When many atheists dismiss the religion (the supernatural, if you wish) they do not say only "I don't believe in God, hence the Bible texts are not true" they regard the Bible as invented by mortal beings (it is no one else out there to carry, even hypothetically, the responsability), that morality is not dictated by some deity, etc., it's a whole perspective which covers many things, it's not merely an abstract belief. Thus "I'm an atheist and the only thing which can be said about me is that  I do not believe in gods" is not true, though the definition of the term claims only that.
I'm not sure I follow. I don't believe in anything supernatural, whether that makes me more than an athiest or not I'm not entirely sure, but I always assumed that it went together. So it's safe to say that I believe the bible is nothing but stories written by many people.
Quote
I honestly haven't meant to generalize what I've said of militant atheism for the atheism. I only wanted to suggest militant atheism (as most militant ideologies, including militant religious ones) is a dangerous thing using the classical example of the communism.
I can see more and more where you and Akouthos are coming from, but it's still a hard pill to swallow for me. Like I mentioned earlier, I'd like to end the train of thought that athiest are bad and without a group that can be catagorized as it, it just gives athiest a bad name. Most people believe that the Communist are the evil athiest, not a group catagorized under atheism if anything.
I'll admit, you guys have shown me the errors in my thinking, but it's difficult to accept something like this when theirs already a label that stains your image for being who you are. If I were to tell someone I was athiest, I may not be trusted for it. It's more easy for people to accept the idea of athiest being militant because of the bad name we have. But I can see there's no way I'm going to win this up hill battle, because now I'm starting to see your arguement more clearly!Smile


-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 17:43
Quote In otherwords, it's not after religion because it's spiritual, but because it was a group with it's own powerful leaders.
I'm sure it's also for the former, as the first theorists of Communism rejected religion (in any form). When Marx called religion opium he addressed precisely its spiritual nature, not the organized religion as a center of power.


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 17:49

True, I forgot about that remark. But it's saying it's seductive, and we should ask what his motivation for this statement was. We know he wanted to create a equal society and a single society I believe. If you look at religion, it's very fractured as a whole, all different systems and all with it's own sects even within them. If we are to look at his idea, and then relgion in this light, you can argue that it's back to a political idea, one of unifying everyone under a single banner. I don't take what I say as true or fact, but I'm just questioning the meaning of the statement in regard with his other ideas.



-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 17:52
Originally posted by SearchandDestroy SearchandDestroy wrote:

I can see more and more where you and Akouthos are coming from, but it's still a hard pill to swallow for me. Like I mentioned earlier, I'd like to end the train of thought that athiest are bad and without a group that can be catagorized as it, it just gives athiest a bad name. Most people believe that the Communist are the evil athiest, not a group catagorized under atheism if anything.
 
For me, atheism is an incidental quality of communism; that is to say that it is not necessary for the rest of the philosophy to hold together. In essence, it is simply a value that has generally been attached to the particular form of communism that dominated the twentieth century. Thus, as I see it, the communists persecuted Christians because they were viewed as anti-Communist, and used their theism as a further justification. Still, people were martyred for their faith, and their status as believers was a cause for scorn, which is the essence of the question for me, theist that I am -- though it is not surprising in light of Christ's warnings about this sort of thing. It may not be so for you; I think we are simply focusing on different parts of the same issue.
 
Quote
I'll admit, you guys have shown me the errors in my thinking, but it's difficult to accept something like this when theirs already a label that stains your image for being who you are. If I were to tell someone I was athiest, I may not be trusted for it. It's more easy for people to accept the idea of athiest being militant because of the bad name we have. But I can see there's no way I'm going to win this up hill battle, because now I'm starting to see your arguement more clearly!Smile
 
If it makes you feel any better, I am often wary of the reaction which I will receive for calling myself a Christian -- though I am proud of it, and would never eschew it. Keep in mind that I used to be a vehement agnostic, and my choice of friends still reflects this. If you are the odd man out over there, take solace in knowing that I am so over here. While you may feel that others think you duplicitous, or a bad influence because of your atheism, I am often viewed as nave or unintelligent because of my Christianity. Perhaps we should engage in some sort of friend exchange. LOL I jest, of course; I truly do love all of my friends dearly.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 18:02
Quote
If it makes you feel any better, I am often wary of the reaction which I will receive for calling myself a Christian -- though I am proud of it, and would never eschew it. Keep in mind that I used to be a vehement agnostic, and my choice of friends still reflects this. If you are the odd man out over there, take solace in knowing that I am so over here. While you may feel that others think you duplicitous, or a bad influence because of your atheism, I am often viewed as nave or unintelligent because of my Christianity. Perhaps we should engage in some sort of friend exchange. LOL I jest, of course; I truly do love all of my friends dearly.
Well it does help! But friends are the ones I can usually tell, meeting someone for the first time I won't usually say anything about belief systems, not anymore atleast. Though in New England, people aren't very religious at all, but if you do meet a person that is, I find that they are very devoted to the idea.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 18:17
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
 
This is the a larger excerpt which contains that famous saying. It's not about seduction, but about illusion, about finding happiness in an unhappy world. Basically if one follows Marx closely must conclude that in a truly happy society religion must disappear.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 18:29
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Reginmund, your second paragraph is actually one of my points. The Communists thought that they will convince people that is possible to live a life without gods and just living in a world of "science" and "equality" (the intentions of the 19th century philosophers were probably noble, but you know what they say about hell). They failed miserably. I wonder why anyone should accept other such experiments


The Communists never had a firm grasp of logic in the first place, nor a sufficient understanding of the nature of man. They were too brutal; atheism must not be forced or rushed, that will only generate resistance. The transition should be smooth and gradual, and come from within. All humans are born with a potential for rational thought, nurturing this potential will bring forth an internal need for enlightenment.

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

If the "proper deductive method" (in which specific manner, I wonder?) is "the very basis for all knowledge", then what of conclusions derived from inductive reasoning? Once again the question arises, albeit in a different context: generals or particulars?


Epistemological theory is another topic. The problem at hand here is verifying religious ideas with empirical method, which is, as has been proven too many times already, a waste of time.


-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 19:08
Quote The Communists never had a firm grasp of logic in the first place
Hilarious. Some people thought the same about Jews, Muslims, ...
 
Quote The transition should be smooth and gradual, and come from within. All humans are born with a potential for rational thought, nurturing this potential will bring forth an internal need for enlightenment.
There were such initiatives in the Communist block as well. The existence of Churches infilitrated from within represents a step from a smooth and gradual transition. Those communists insisting on a fast revolutionary change of the face of the world were opposed by other communists which with patience waited the world to see the potential of the communism (rational thought, enlightenment) and instead adopted long-term strategies. This type of discourse is so alike with the practice experienced already under Communism that I only can wonder how well I have chosen my example for why militant atheism is harmful.
Any "humanity will eventually see my ideas are right" bears a mark of fanatism and intolerance and sets the stage for totalitarian outbursts. If you don't assume your ideas might be wrong and other people will continue to believe what they want, then freedom as we know it cannot exist.
 
Quote The problem at hand here is verifying religious ideas with empirical method, which is, as has been proven too many times already, a waste of time.
Because the method was flawed in so many cases. Science addresses specific questions, not knowledge, in general. But the limits of scientific knowledge were discussed over and over in so many threads.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 21:59
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Hilarious. Some people thought the same about Jews, Muslims, ...


Smartpeople.
Originally posted by Chilbudious Chilbudious wrote:

Any "humanity will eventually see my ideas are right" bears a mark of fanatism and intolerance and sets the stage for totalitarian outbursts.If you don't assume your ideas might be wrong and other people will continue to believe what they want, then freedom as we know it cannot exist.


There is no point in listening to a man who doesn't even believe in himself.
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Because the method was flawed in so many cases. Science addresses specific questions, not knowledge, in general. But the limits of scientific knowledge were discussed over and over in so many threads.


Next we could argue how the human senses are flawed and not really a basis for establishing anything. Empirical method is at present the most applicable way of verifying or falsifying claims, andsowewillstickwithuntilepistemologyisrevolutionised,whichIdon'tbelievewillhappenanytimesoon.


-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 22:14
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

If the "proper deductive method" (in which specific manner, I wonder?) is "the very basis for all knowledge", then what of conclusions derived from inductive reasoning? Once again the question arises, albeit in a different context: generals or particulars?
Epistemological theory is another topic. The problem at hand here is verifying religious ideas with empirical method, which is, as has been proven too many times already, a waste of time.
 
Says you. Wink I don't see that as a problem at all; there are many types of knowledge, Reginmund.
 
And epistemological theory is precisely what we need to be talking about, unless you simply expect me to trust you to determine which types of knowledge are important, and which types of knowledge aren't really knowledge at all. Should I also trust you to determine how to define "the proper deductive method"? You seem to want me to place a bit of -- pardon -- faith in your ability to arrive at the proper conclusion before we have even established the premises; I fail to see what is properly deductive about that. Wink
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2008 at 08:04
Chilbudios, don't you think we better pm eachoter in order to clarify our ideas about RSR? I think it might bother the others who participate in this discussion if we continue.
So, about my conclusion. There seem to be a general agreement that atheism cannot be seen as a doctrine. If agnosticism is also integrated in atheism then certainly we do have a lot of concepts about existance that basically share one common idea: non-faith.
You declared yourself being a non-faithful yourself and so am I though we probably disagree with eachother on terms of our non-faith. There are individuals that are actively engaged in actions to promote the atheist ideas. The "scientific atheism" promoted by in Romania is an example of what could be considered a form of militant atheism. But the point is that "scientific atheism" in itself is not a doctrine or an ideology all by itself. It's a component of the communist doctrine. It's like saying that Catholic Christianity is only going to church every Sunday.
As far as I see it the "militant atheists" are only acting based on the principle of freedom of thought, expression and choice.
 


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2008 at 13:18
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Smart people.
 
The stereotype is merely a tool. This is how militant ideologues condone and even promote shameless discrimination (ethnic - Jews, religious - Muslims and even simply ideological - Communists).
 
Quote There is no point in listening to a man who doesn't even believe in himself.
You seem not to differentiate between believing in yourself and blindly believing that you are right and promote to others your flawed views. The irony is, the science you worship as true knowledge, reclaims that no fact is certain.
 
Quote Empirical method is at present the most applicable way of verifying or falsifying claims, and so we will stick with until epistemology is revolutionised, which I don't believe will happen anytime soon.
You revolve in circles. If I have said the empirical method is flawed, that means I have said empirical verification is flawed as a method for some beliefs. In case you have no idea what epistemology is, here's a brief for you:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/  (please note a) empirical method is not the only way to produce justified knowledge and b) there are specific questions of religious epistemology)
And here you have other two links from a recent discussion I had with Cezar which basically show you that some religious beliefs may be epistemically justifiable (in other words they constitute knowledge - there's no point in requiring them to be empirically proven):
http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html - http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=104663 - http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=104663
 
 


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2008 at 13:34
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

There seem to be a general agreement that atheism cannot be seen as a doctrine. If agnosticism is also integrated in atheism then certainly we do have a lot of concepts about existance that basically share one common idea: non-faith.
Why integrate agnosticism? Just because you want to rally a campaign against the faithful (the Other)?
 
Quote
There are individuals that are actively engaged in actions to promote the atheist ideas. The "scientific atheism" promoted by in Romania is an example of what could be considered a form of militant atheism. But the point is that "scientific atheism" in itself is not a doctrine or an ideology all by itself. It's a component of the communist doctrine. It's like saying that Catholic Christianity is only going to church every Sunday.
No, is like saying Millenarism is a doctrine some Christian branches share. There're lots of Christian doctrines, not only one. Atheism is not a monolith, militant atheism is not one, nor Christianity or the Communism. But we can find common beliefs. There are no preset boundaries to define doctrines, doctrines get defined through campaigns, movements, channels, propaganda, etc.. Thus in Communism an atheistic doctrine got shape. You're just promoting the same denial along this discussion. The propagandistic materials used by Communist atheistic organizations had titles like "The Atheist Guide" not the "Young Revolutionary Guide".
 
Quote As far as I see it the "militant atheists" are only acting based on the principle of freedom of thought, expression and choice.
On the contrary, the militant atheists (I repeat, like any militant ideologues) ignore the principles of freedom and choice. If Dawkins or Reginmund pontificate that conversion to atheism is iminent, where's the freedom and the choice? According to them the people have two choices: to be irrational or atheists. I.e. be with us or go to world's trash bin. This is no choice.


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 08:16
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Why integrate agnosticism? Just because you want to rally a campaign against the faithful (the Other)?
Actually the militant religious integrate all non-faithful in a single category. In some variants this includes also religious people different than them. Heathen is something like that.
Quote
No, is like saying Millenarism is a doctrine some Christian branches share. There're lots of Christian doctrines, not only one. Atheism is not a monolith, militant atheism is not one, nor Christianity or the Communism. But we can find common beliefs. There are no preset boundaries to define doctrines, doctrines get defined through campaigns, movements, channels, propaganda, etc.. Thus in Communism an atheistic doctrine got shape. You're just promoting the same denial along this discussion. The propagandistic materials used by Communist atheistic organizations had titles like "The Atheist Guide" not the "Young Revolutionary Guide". 
Ok, Chilbudios, why don't you give a definition of militant atheism that can be universally accepted? I see none, maybe you can enlighten me.
Quote On the contrary, the militant atheists (I repeat, like any militant ideologues) ignore the principles of freedom and choice. If Dawkins or Reginmund pontificate that conversion to atheism is iminent, where's the freedom and the choice? According to them the people have two choices: to be irrational or atheists. I.e. be with us or go to world's trash bin. This is no choice.
Actually they say that there is no choice in the same way that you have no choice when you're going to die. They just see religion as something going to it's extinction.
As a side note to your observation: if I'm militating for the freedom and choice, which according to you makes me a militant ideologue, then I ignore the principles of freedom and choice, don't I?


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 11:05
Quote Actually the militant religious integrate all non-faithful in a single category. In some variants this includes also religious people different than them. Heathen is something like that.
So what? The parallels you draw between militant atheism and militant religious organizations only show how dangerous the former is.
 
Quote Ok, Chilbudios, why don't you give a definition of militant atheism that can be universally accepted? I see none, maybe you can enlighten me.
I assume both "militant" and "atheism" are defined in every dictionary, I'm not seeking for any hidden meanings.
 
Quote
Actually they say that there is no choice in the same way that you have no choice when you're going to die. They just see religion as something going to it's extinction.
As a side note to your observation: if I'm militating for the freedom and choice, which according to you makes me a militant ideologue, then I ignore the principles of freedom and choice, don't I?
Does "freedom fighter" ring any bell? Freedom and choice come with an entire culture, an entire system of thought and awareness, you cannot take a medieval world and give them 21st century Western "freedom" without destroying that world (and in the process to miss the actual freedom those people really needed).
As for the pontificated extinction it's not a scientific prediction but the result of propaganda and various forms of cleansing (more or less brutal).
 


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 14:10
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

So what? The parallels you draw between militant atheism and militant religious organizations only show how dangerous the former is.
Have you read the starting post? The parallel was is drawn by a religious nutcase. If someone is religious I don't mind. I can contradict him in a discussion and he can contradict me. That's not militant from either side.
Quote
Quote Ok, Chilbudios, why don't you give a definition of militant atheism that can be universally accepted? I see none, maybe you can enlighten me.
I assume both "militant" and "atheism" are defined in every dictionary, I'm not seeking for any hidden meanings.
 
Quote
So militant atheism is just the result of the association of two terms in the dictionary?[quote
Actually they say that there is no choice in the same way that you have no choice when you're going to die. They just see religion as something going to it's extinction.
As a side note to your observation: if I'm militating for the freedom and choice, which according to you makes me a militant ideologue, then I ignore the principles of freedom and choice, don't I?
Does "freedom fighter" ring any bell? Freedom and choice come with an entire culture, an entire system of thought and awareness, you cannot take a medieval world and give them 21st century Western "freedom" without destroying that world (and in the process to miss the actual freedom those people really needed).[/quote]
I don't know what do you mean. You seem answer some another question not mine.
Quote
As for the pontificated extinction it's not a scientific prediction but the result of propaganda and various forms of cleansing (more or less brutal).
 
So if I state that the Sun is going to die, (turn into a white dwarf) then I'm making propaganda and stellar cleansing?


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 16:05
Quote Have you read the starting post? The parallel was is drawn by a religious nutcase. If someone is religious I don't mind. I can contradict him in a discussion and he can contradict me. That's not militant from either side.
We were not talking about the starting post, nor am I talking about bringing arguments in a discussion. This thread of replies springs from a "if we integrate agnosticism ..." (read back to see how it evolved).
 
Quote So militant atheism is just the result of the association of two terms in the dictionary?
Should I explain you the grammar? (it's a noun + an adjective, in case you wonder)
 
Quote I don't know what do you mean. You seem answer some another question not mine.
I precisely answered your question. There are already "freedom fighters" and we know who they are and what they do. We've also seen wars waged in the name of the freedom. So, why give me the "ifs" instead of the facts?
You cannot be a militant for an abstract concept of free choice because that is a self-contradictory position, propaganda influences the choices, thus they are not free.
 
Quote
So if I state that the Sun is going to die, (turn into a white dwarf) then I'm making propaganda and stellar cleansing?
 The deaths of the stars is a scientific theory. That world will become atheistic one day is a dream of some heated minds wishing all the world to share their ideals of progress and welfare. .


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 17:46
The deaths of the stars is a scientific theory. That world will become atheistic one day is a dream of some heated minds wishing all the world to share their ideals of progress and welfare. .

Good comment!! It is only a pipe dream and man will always believe in deity. The Chinese communist tried to destroy Christianity and it only grew all the more. Everywhere man has tried to stomp out religious beliefs it has only grown.

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 18:02
Quote Everywhere man has tried to stomp out religious beliefs it has only grown.
Not just religion, I think when people are oppressed by any ideology, the natural feeling is resisitence towards it.
 
Though I agree faith will never die out, I believe new religions will take hold and/or atleast fluctuate. I think Christianity held the mantel for the fastest growing religion, but despite bad press it seems Islam has taken the throne as the fastest growing of the Abrahamic Religions in the world.


-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 19:39
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy SearchAndDestroy wrote:

Quote Everywhere man has tried to stomp out religious beliefs it has only grown.
Not just religion, I think when people are oppressed by any ideology, the natural feeling is resisitence towards it.

Though I agree faith will never die out, I believe new religions will take hold and/or atleast fluctuate. I think Christianity held the mantel for the fastest growing religion, but despite bad press it seems Islam has taken the throne as the fastest growing of the Abrahamic Religions in the world.


I agree someday new beliefs will sprout and replace the old or at least compete. Maybe some of the old pagan Greco/Roman beliefs will recycle- lol!!

I will have to search for proof but some groups claim Christianity is the fatest growing religion but It really doesn't matter to me. I can look it up if you want though.

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 20:16
Well I'm not really concerned which one is really growing faster personally. But I have heard that Islam is the fastest growing, and the point is a single religion doesn't seem to last, like everything else, it seems to peak and decline. I'd suspect that it will probably resurge again, but probably not as much as it once was. The old pagan religions do seem to be coming back, but I don't think they'll ever have the strength to effect culture again.
 
I think the Abrahamic religions will just keep evolving, I don't think the multiple gods model will ever come back, but thats my opinion.


-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 07:59
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Quote Have you read the starting post? The parallel was is drawn by a religious nutcase. If someone is religious I don't mind. I can contradict him in a discussion and he can contradict me. That's not militant from either side.
We were not talking about the starting post, nor am I talking about bringing arguments in a discussion. This thread of replies springs from a "if we integrate agnosticism ..." (read back to see how it evolved).
Really? You do read my posts, don't you. Check it yourself I wrote "If agnosticism is also integrated...". My humble knowledge of English.
Quote  
 
Quote So militant atheism is just the result of the association of two terms in the dictionary?
Should I explain you the grammar? (it's a noun + an adjective, in case you wonder)
According to you, communism is merely a noun, so is religion, faith, atheism, etc.
Quote  
Quote I don't know what do you mean. You seem answer some another question not mine.
I precisely answered your question. There are already "freedom fighters" and we know who they are and what they do. We've also seen wars waged in the name of the freedom. So, why give me the "ifs" instead of the facts?
You cannot be a militant for an abstract concept of free choice because that is a self-contradictory position, propaganda influences the choices, thus they are not free.
So militating for unrestricted freedom restricts me to unrestricted freedom.
Quote
Quote
So if I state that the Sun is going to die, (turn into a white dwarf) then I'm making propaganda and stellar cleansing?
 The deaths of the stars is a scientific theory. That world will become atheistic one day is a dream of some heated minds wishing all the world to share their ideals of progress and welfare. .
Marx and Engels presented a scientific theory regarding society. The ideology derived from it is something different. Richard Dawkings does try to use science when he predicts the dissapeareance of religion. He also promotes atheism in the name of reason not in the name of atheism. He didn't wrote a book called "The Atheist Manifest". Science and scientific theoryes are and have been used as the reason of some ideas or ideologyes.
There in no "militant homosexuality" yet there are militant homosexuals. They do not attempt to convert everyone to their behaviour they just want to be recognized as our equals.
"Scientific atheism" was created by the communists precisely because atheism, all by itself, doesn't provide a functional ideological basis. If you had the curiosity of reading the doctrine you should have noticed that it was constructed in a circular logic.
I repeat, communism, as an ideology or a doctrine, justifies istelf through science. Also a fundamental concept is that religion, meaning organized religion, is a tool for controlling the people. Since atheism is obviously a perfect justification to dismantle organized religion its also a  tool to impose the communism. Since Lenin, communism was a militant, even agressive ideology. Marx class strugle was redeifined as direct and ruthless confrontation. This automaticly turns every communist into a militant, that also makes him a militant atheist among other.
Anyway, "militant atheism" is a nonsense.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 08:48
Quote Really? You do read my posts, don't you. Check it yourself I wrote "If agnosticism is also integrated...". My humble knowledge of English.
Oh snap, I've misquoted Cezar and his ego is now revolting LOL
 
Quote According to you, communism is merely a noun, so is religion, faith, atheism, etc.
Yes they are all nouns, but not merely. If you have no other arguments beside trolling I'd just quit the discussion.
 
Quote So militating for unrestricted freedom restricts me to unrestricted freedom.
Huh?
 
Quote Marx and Engels presented a scientific theory regarding society. The ideology derived from it is something different. Richard Dawkings does try to use science when he predicts the dissapeareance of religion.
For Marx is true, for Dawkings not. Marx developed a historicist theory where Communist followed by necessity (though he eventually was proved wrong), Dawkings is merely fantasizing about people converting to atheism after reading his books.
 
Quote He also promotes atheism in the name of reason not in the name of atheism. He didn't wrote a book called "The Atheist Manifest". Science and scientific theoryes are and have been used as the reason of some ideas or ideologyes.
Dawkins clearly described himself and his actions as militant atheistic.
 
Quote
There in no "militant homosexuality" yet there are militant homosexuals. They do not attempt to convert everyone to their behaviour they just want to be recognized as our equals.
You're making a confusion between a minority militating for rights and a group militating for beliefs. Homosexuals do not attack heterosexuals for their sexual orientation (like militant atheists attack religion). Dawkins doesn't want believers and non-believers to coexist happily together, but the former to fade from the history of humanity.
 
Quote
"Scientific atheism" was created by the communists precisely because atheism, all by itself, doesn't provide a functional ideological basis. If you had the curiosity of reading the doctrine you should have noticed that it was constructed in a circular logic.
There's no more circularity in "scientific atheism" than in "atheism" or "science". "Scientific atheism" was actually an attack against religion in the spirit of d'Holbach, Feuerbach, Marx (though with arguments a bit updated: i.e. "Gagarin was in space and he found no god there") which aimed to tell the people two things: a) science is the only true way to know, b) by science we can find no god, there god doesn't exist
 
Quote I repeat, communism, as an ideology or a doctrine, justifies istelf through science. Also a fundamental concept is that religion, meaning organized religion, is a tool for controlling the people. Since atheism is obviously a perfect justification to dismantle organized religion its also a  tool to impose the communism.
You repeat in vain, no one is challenging that. Only that militant atheism was a distinctive component of the Communist regimes as proven already in the thread.
 
Quote
Anyway, "militant atheism" is a nonsense.
Denial. You're so .... religious about protecting "atheism"  LOL
 
 
 


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 11:08
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Quote Really? You do read my posts, don't you. Check it yourself I wrote "If agnosticism is also integrated...". My humble knowledge of English.
Oh snap, I've misquoted Cezar and his ego is now revolting LOL
I was just wondering if you reply to what I'm posting or to what you think I'm posting
Quote  
Quote According to you, communism is merely a noun, so is religion, faith, atheism, etc.
Yes they are all nouns, but not merely. If you have no other arguments beside trolling I'd just quit the discussion.
I'll rephrase it: do you think grammar is the only thing to use in definning an ideology?[qoute] 
Quote So militating for unrestricted freedom restricts me to unrestricted freedom.
Huh? [/quote] What?
Quote  
Quote Marx and Engels presented a scientific theory regarding society. The ideology derived from it is something different. Richard Dawkings does try to use science when he predicts the dissapeareance of religion.
For Marx is true, for Dawkings not. Marx developed a historicist theory where Communist followed by necessity (though he eventually was proved wrong), Dawkings is merely fantasizing about people converting to atheism after reading his books.
Marx was fantasizing about people converting to communism after reading his books. Dawkings does not describe his work as pure literature or pure science. He attempts to "convert" people to atheism using scientific arguments. I don't say he's right or wrong, that's not the point of this discussion. He's a militant atheist but he doesn't create an atheist doctrine. He does, indeed, urges people to give up their religion. If you read his book you will notice that he concentrates on Abrahamic religions. And he states that deism or pantheism are religions that are not wrong. Also, he focuses mainly on the fact taht religion is dangerous because it restricts both freedom and mind and breeds intolerance.
Quote
Quote
There in no "militant homosexuality" yet there are militant homosexuals. They do not attempt to convert everyone to their behaviour they just want to be recognized as our equals.
You're making a confusion between a minority militating for rights and a group militating for beliefs. Homosexuals do not attack heterosexuals for their sexual orientation (like militant atheists attack religion). Dawkins doesn't want believers and non-believers to coexist happily together, but the former to fade from the history of humanity.
No he wants the believers to fall into the history of humanity. Anway, what's the atheist group militating for their belief?
Quote
Quote
"Scientific atheism" was created by the communists precisely because atheism, all by itself, doesn't provide a functional ideological basis. If you had the curiosity of reading the doctrine you should have noticed that it was constructed in a circular logic.
There's no more circularity in "scientific atheism" than in "atheism" or "science". "Scientific atheism" was actually an attack against religion in the spirit of d'Holbach, Feuerbach, Marx (though with arguments a bit updated: i.e. "Gagarin was in space and he found no god there") which aimed to tell the people two things: a) science is the only true way to know, b) by science we can find no god, there god doesn't exist
How's atheism circular? Or science? Off course "scientific atheism" was against religion, I didn't stated anything different. I actually stated that communism was against religion so they used "atheism" and "science" for promoting their ideology.
Here is a link and a quote to someplace you might like: http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm - http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm

The case for atheism as a kind of belief -- the belief in the nonexistence of God -- was championed by no less a figure than J.M. Robertson, the great historian of freethought. Robertson argued that any "ism," including atheism, implies that we are dealing with a positive belief or doctrine, not a simple privation. Contrary to Robertson's view, "-ism" can mean something other than a doctrine or belief; it can mean "a state or condition" as well. Thus, the privative definition of atheism is still possible. Atheism as the absence of belief can denote an "ism" -- a state of mind in which theistic belief is absent.(...)

Or perhaps atheists can fall back on the rule of fundamentality, which says that a definition should identify the fundamental, or essential, attribute of the concept being defined. Obviously, the absence of theistic belief is more fundamental than the denial of theism, for the latter is a subset of the former. (One who denies the existence of God also lacks belief, but the reverse is not necessarily true: one who lacks belief in God does not necessarily deny its existence.)

According to this reasoning, one who denies God's existence is a legitimate atheist, but he subscribes to a particular species of atheism. If, however, we construe atheism as the denial of God's existence, then the person who merely lacks theistic belief is not a real atheist, but an imposter. This exclusion by definition, it seems to me, is ungracious, and it shows ignorance of what important atheists have argued for many years.

Quote

Quote I repeat, communism, as an ideology or a doctrine, justifies istelf through science. Also a fundamental concept is that religion, meaning organized religion, is a tool for controlling the people. Since atheism is obviously a perfect justification to dismantle organized religion its also a  tool to impose the communism.
You repeat in vain, no one is challenging that. Only that militant atheism was a distinctive component of the Communist regimes as proven already in the thread.
 Only that atheism was a distinctive component. Promoted by communists who were militant atheists, among other things.
Quote
Quote
Anyway, "militant atheism" is a nonsense.
Denial. You're so .... religious about protecting "atheism"  LOL
I'll rephrase it: "Militant atheism" is an inconsitent term. Be it positive or negative, atheism is consistent. The positive atheism, the one does states firmly: "God is=false" has nothing to prove. So, there's no goal to achieve. Negative atheism and/or agnosticism are based on various levels of incertitude regarding "God is". Therefore they too don't define a goal.
Communism has a goal. Religion(s) have a goal. Atheism hasn't. It can't be defined as militant.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 12:59
Quote I was just wondering if you reply to what I'm posting or to what you think I'm posting
If you have such serious problems why don't you muse on them a bit more before replying to me?
 
Quote I'll rephrase it: do you think grammar is the only thing to use in definning an ideology?
I'm not sharing your interest in trolling.
 
Quote What?
I was simply offering you a chance to rephrase a non-sensical claim.
 
Quote Marx was fantasizing about people converting to communism after reading his books.
You have no idea what Marx wrote.
 
Quote does not describe his work as pure literature or pure science. He attempts to "convert" people to atheism using scientific arguments.
Mocking religion does not qualify for science just because its author believes that.
 
Quote He's a militant atheist but he doesn't create an atheist doctrine.
Why? He doesn't have a written authorization from the president? LOL Look, that's a contradiction in terms, to be militant in the name of a belief requires a doctrine (it requires a system of beliefs and a principial value assigned to at least some of them, otherwise the militancy cannot be performed).
 
Quote And he states that deism or pantheism are religions that are not wrong. 
Both deny theism in their way.
 
Quote Anway, what's the atheist group militating for their belief?
I've already provided examples you conveniently ignored. I have no problem in finding few more examples because the internet is full of:
http://www.cafepress.com/antireligion/639030 - http://www.cafepress.com/antireligion/639030
http://groups.msn.com/MilitantAtheistMaterialists - http://groups.msn.com/MilitantAtheistMaterialists  (these guys use Marx quotes for mottos)
 
Quote How's atheism circular? Or science?
That's a basic epistemological fact. How one justifies science? If he chooses science, he'll be guilty of circular reasoning. Without metaphyics the justifications will end up in being circular.
But this was not what I have said anyway. I have said that scientific atheism is as circular as its components (science and atheism). Depending on your take on them (rooted in metaphysics or not), the result will be changed accordingly

Quote Here is a link and a quote to someplace you might like
That link is missing the point. We're not talking about atheism, but about militant atheism. Maybe in exchange you'd like a quote from John Dewey, a 20th century American philosopher:

One reason why personally I think it fitting to use the word God to denote that uniting of the ideal and actual which has been spoken of, lies in the fact that aggressive atheism seems to me to have something in common with traditional supernaturalism. I do not mean merely that the former is mainly so negative that it fails to give positive direction to thought, though that fact is pertinent. What I have in mind especially is the exclusive preoccupation of both militant atheism and supernaturalism with humanity in isolation. For in spite of supernaturalisms reference to something beyond nature, it conceived of this earth as the moral center of the universe and of human beings as the apex of the whole scheme of things. It regards the drama of sin and redemption enacted within the isolated and lonely soul as the one thing of ultimate importance. Apart from humanity, nature is held either accursed or negligible. Militant atheism is also affected by lack of natural piety. The ties binding us to nature that poets have always celebrated are passed over lightly. The attitude taken is often that of our living in an indifferent and hostile world and issuing blasts of defiance. A religious attitude, however, needs the sense of our connection, in the way of both dependence and support, with the enveloping world that the imagination feels is a universe. Use of the words God or divine to convey the union of actual and ideal may protect human beings from a sense of isolation and from consequent despair or defiance. A humanistic religion, if it excludes our relation to nature, is pale and thin, as it is presumptuous, when it takes humanity as an object of worship.
 
Quote
I'll rephrase it: "Militant atheism" is an inconsitent term. Be it positive or negative, atheism is consistent. The positive atheism, the one does states firmly: "God is=false" has nothing to prove. So, there's no goal to achieve. Negative atheism and/or agnosticism are based on various levels of incertitude regarding "God is". Therefore they too don't define a goal.
Communism has a goal. Religion(s) have a goal. Atheism hasn't. It can't be defined as militant.
Communist groups of atheistic propagnda had a goal. Dawkins has a goal. Atheism doesn't have a goal, but militant atheism has.  


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 13:06
Let's keep it civil...
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 13:31
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

You seem not to differentiate between believing in yourself and blindly believing that you are right and promote to others your flawed views. The irony is, the science you worship as true knowledge, reclaims that no fact is certain.
 
There is no irony, you simply misunderstand my use of "verification", which is entirely orthodox. When I say something is verified I do not mean to say it's what you would call certain fact, but that it is more likely to be true than the alternatives. That is what we must relate to, and that's the trumph card of atheism.


-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 13:50
Quote
There is no irony, you simply misunderstand my use of "verification", which is entirely orthodox. When I say something is verified I do not mean to say it's what you would call certain fact, but that it is more likely to be true than the alternatives. That is what we must relate to, and that's the trumph card of atheism.
Since the foundational bricks of science cannot be verified, what "likelier truths" are out there? The strength of the science relies in the fact it can be corrected, not verified. Thus verification becomes a method to find errors, not truths, and we hold as truth what is not yet proved to be erroneous.
 
The atheistic belief is doomed to be a non-empirical one (since the lack of gods cannot be perceived in any way, nor can we browse exhaustively the universe / universes? in the search for one). Many empiricists are actually agnostics (e.g. Huxley) because empiricism drives people to draw conclusions upon the things they have experimented, not upon the things they haven't.


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 15:23
C'mon Chilbudios, even those links you provided are about militant atheists not militant atheism.
Here's a better one: http://www.atheists.org - http://www.atheists.org , and a definition of what atheism is taken from there:

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are super natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.

There you are! A "doctrine" for atheists. I wonder if it can be considered militant atheism. Though it does appear to be a definition of atheism. I'm confused, could atheism and militant atheism be the same?
Maybe you mistake antitheism with atheism. The former is militant.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 15:35
Quote C'mon Chilbudios, even those links you provided are about militant atheists not militant atheism.
You have asked for militant atheist groups which I have provided. Don't blame me for your own incoherencies.
 
Quote Here's a better one
Not about militant atheists/atheism, hence a red herring.
 
Quote
Maybe you mistake antitheism with atheism. The former is militant.
Antitheism is another name for militant atheism. You're the one mistaking militant atheism with atheism, though I have signaled you repeatedly about the difference.


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 15:58
Chibudios, all that I have found was atheism. Not militant atheism. I've found militant atheists, indeed. They invoke atheism as their belief/doctrine or whatever. Indeed those links are relatet to militant atheists but all they state is that they are militating for atheism. I was browsing those sites before I've read your post.
The topic, related to Brian's firs post was using the term "militant atheism". I'm saying that there is no such thing. Antitheism is not just another name for militant atheism. Even wiki provides some useful info regarding the differences.
And from the site I've mentioned check this: http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/bash.html - http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/bash.html . If that's not a militant atheist then I'm really confused.
Could you please try and describe what's the difference between atheism and militant atheism?



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net