Help this theist understand militant atheism

[PC1]

This is a post an atheist made on another forum:


"Also, we need to be careful to distinguish between nonbelievers of several different kinds:

1) Are certain that there is no God or other supernatural power - a.k.a. Militant Atheists;

2) Aren't 100% positive about there being no deity or deities, but are skeptical because they've seen no objective evidence for one, and see that the various world religions are mutually incompatible - we could call these the "Tending-towards-atheist"s;

3) Don't claim to know either way, are open to there quite possibly being some kind of Higher Power, but similarly to (2), are skeptical about any one of the multitudes of world religions being The Right One - a.k.a. agnostics.

The folks in category (1) often come off as arrogant and intolerant as the True Believers, likely because they elevate belief-in-nothing to a kind of secular religion, and are similarly misguided in their self-assuredness of being right, and everyone who doesn't believe as they do being wrong-headed and unenlightened.

For the record, I'm a (2) + Secular Humanist, what was in former times often called a Freethinker."

Is this a fair portrayal of militant atheism?

Apparantly Lenin wrote in 1922 (as per Wikipedia) that militant atheism is "carry[ing] on untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheist fight".

What I'd like is for someone to make a list of the main 5-10 tenets that are central to militant atheism.

[Furrowed Brow]

1) Are certain that there is no God or other supernatural power - a.k.a. Militant Atheists;

That sounds like me.

, however, is virtually always used to describe a pattern of behaviour rather than a viewpoint. It also carries with it an implication of violence.

Perhaps atheist extremism would be a better fit for those promoting a view of atheism bordering on the irrational

Yeah extreme atheist sounds better. I'd go with the irrational.

Militant atheism is illogical

I’d use the word irrational not illogical I think, but I can go with the basic point.

so you can only find emotional reasons and tenants for such a mindset.

No. Not emotional in the sense I think you wish to use the word. It is certainly an attitude, a way of living. I call it an aesthetic. It is a preference for parsimony.

Where it is completely logical and honest for a person to admit that they see no proof of God nor have they ever experienced God, it is something else to say that their lack of experience proves the non-existence of God.

Extreme atheists are certain there is no God. However I think you will need to quote those who say that lack of evidence proves the non-existence of God. This is a claim a clear thinking atheist will scoff at. You are pulling on a straw man here.

It is like this with a militant atheist. The negative emotion of their scepticism denies the ability to look within themselves so as to become vulnerable to the experiences that lead to personal proof.

Atheism has nothing to do with emotions, as I think you are using the word. Any atheism that is founded on scepticism provides for a shallow existence I do not recognise as atheism proper. Sceptics reject everything, and they reject everything because it is always possible to form an objection and hide behind that objection. Scepticism is an empty, lazy and slightly cowardly position. An atheist only rejects the presence of any gods. (I have to say you are not shining any light here on what an atheist looks like on the inside).

For the extreme atheist there is a sense of wonder and a deep sense that to be fully and clearly engaged with the universe requires intellectual parsimony, and that the only answers that count are the ones arrived at through honesty and rigour. What is left is irrational - true - and for an extreme atheist what is left certainly lacks a sense of any god. However there is also an overpowering sense that theism’s lack of ontological parsimony is out of tune with the universe and that this is certainly misconceived. Thus an extreme atheist is certain there is no God. An extreme atheist cannot objectively prove this stance, but he lives by it, and feels that any other way of living fails the in the areas that are the most important him - parsimony, rigour, honesty.

Militant atheism denies the proof of the heart

Whose heart? Not an atheists. Our hearts prove there is no god.

The religious influence that helps people to grow on the inside

Well from over hear it certainly looks like the theist are filling themselves full of something…

that they can rise in their understanding

..rise in their understanding? There is experience, and then all the intellectual and self reflective faculties you can bring to bear upon that experience. I can’t say what that feels like for a theist, I know it takes application to be an atheist. I think you have some notion of atheism equalling a lazy unreflective scepticism.

and come to appreciate and participate in the collective value of the balance between obligations and rights doesn't happen because of idolatry.

I think you should begin to name the atheist idols.

It happens from the need and willingness to develop our capacity to understand our relation to the higher and begin to feel human meaning and purpose.

To feel human meaning requires understanding something “higher”? Hmm. How about to begin to feel human meaning requires feeling human meaning and only human meaning in situ. Nothing higher, lower, nor anywhere else, just where its at.

It begins with humility.

Okay so to have a humble view of one’s own importance require understanding the presence of something higher that says the universe is created for you, and that you are made in the image of God and that this way of looking at yourself is “higher”. Or…you are what you are in your cotton socks and that is it. You have no cosmic significance at all.

Which state of being gets closer to living humbly?

[Nick_A]

Furrowed Brow

Nice post. No condemnation but just points of discussion.

No. Not emotional in the sense I think you wish to use the word. It is certainly an attitude, a way of living. I call it an aesthetic. It is a preference for parsimony.

Extreme atheists are certain there is no God. However I think you will need to quote those who say that lack of evidence proves the non-existence of God. This is a claim a clear thinking atheist will scoff at. You are pulling on a straw man here.

I believe you are referring here to the balanced atheist but the thread is about the militant atheist which I was referring to. militant atheism is founded on the same skepticism that you caution about later in your post. There is a difference between logical intellectual denial and defensive emotional denial which I sense in the militant atheist. Saying I don't know is not saying I believe but merely leaving the question open.

For the extreme atheist there is a sense of wonder and a deep sense that to be fully and clearly engaged with the universe requires intellectual parsimony, and that the only answers that count are the ones arrived at through honesty and rigour. What is left is irrational - true - and for an extreme atheist what is left certainly lacks a sense of any god. However there is also an overpowering sense that theism’s lack of ontological parsimony is out of tune with the universe and that this is certainly misconceived. Thus an extreme atheist is certain there is no God. An extreme atheist cannot objectively prove this stance, but he lives by it, and feels that any other way of living fails the in the areas that are at the heart of atheist, - parsimony, rigour, honesty.

I see you appreciate exploring this idea without condemnation and I believe it is worthwhile. I will begin a thread on "Beauty" that features two excerpts" one by a famous atheist and one by Simone Weil. It is fascinating to compare the perspectives and see how they relate to awe and what the emotion indicates. I would appreciate your input on this thread.

Whose heart? Not an atheists. Our hearts prove there is no god.

It is so hard to clarify this. Where I believe that 50 years from now science will have proven the logic of intelligent design, it is the heart that has become open beyond the norm that is capable of the proof of God. To begin with the open heart knows that secularized conceptions of God are faulty and asserts no God. This freedom of attachment to idolatry can lead to an opening and the proof of the heart. No one explains this like Simone since she made the transition from atheism to belief.:

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

..rise in their understanding? There is experience, and then all the intellectual and self reflective faculties you can bring to bear upon that experience. I can’t say what that feels like for a theist, I know it takes application to be an atheist. I think you have some notion of atheism equalling a lazy unreflective scepticism.

Not at all. Being secular, all their intellectual and self reflective faculties occur on one level. Their concern is for doing the right thing connecting before with after. The essence of religion is concerned with the quality of a moment; the quality of "now" as opposed to relating before and after. The quality of now is based on the inner psychological recognition of "as above, so below." The quality of the moment puts us in the middle connecting higher with lower. Nothing exists by itself but its existence is defined in relation to what is above and below it along the scale of being. You can only define the note "fa" on a musical scale in relation to mi and sol. The purpose of the essence of religion is to help us raise our quality of the moment.

Matthew 8 in the Bible relates this strange story of the centurion who understands just this. he describes how he is boss of what is below him yet knows he is nothing in relation to above and asks for help on this basis. This is why Jesus said he had not found "so great faith, no, not in Israel." The centurion apparently had direct experiential awareness of himself as this "middle" which is faith not in something but faith as a human attribute.

I think you should begin to name the atheist idols.

To feel human meaning requires understanding something “higher”? Hmm. How about to begin to feel human meaning requires feeling human meaning and only human meaning in situ. Nothing higher, lower, nor anywhere else, just where its at.

The idol of atheism is none other than the Collective which Plato referred to as the "Beast." The "Great Beast" provides meaning and purpose for Man in the absence of our psychological awareness of being connected to the above and bettering this connection through developing our capacity to "understand" with the whole of ourelves

Okay so to have a humble view of one’s own importance require understanding the presence of something higher that says the universe is created for you, and that you are made in the image of God and that this way of looking at yourself is “higher”. Or…you are what you are in your cotton socks and that is it. You have no cosmic significance at all.

The universe was not created to serve us but rather we must serve universal purpose in one form or another. Our cosmic significance as fallen man is the same as the significance of all organic life on earth. Its purpose is to transform substances through its bodily processes. Man also has the potential to serve a conscious purpose. Fallen man may contain the parts that define being in the image, but they are in a chaotic state. The purpose of the essence of religion is to help the plurality of our being evolve back to its origin or inner unity. When a person becomes able to experience this reality in themselves and their own nothingness in relation to human potential it is easy to become humble.

[Nick_A]

Bernee

Perhaps atheist extremism would be a better fit for those promoting a view of atheism bordering on the irrational

OK since they are not carrying guns.

I'll leave it to you to tell Rusty he is misguided and not really a Christian.

It is natural for a pre-Christian to respect how far they are from Christianity. If it weren't the case it wouldn't be needed. There is no offense in this.

A person that plays bad chess doesn't appreciate how good a grandmaster is. The better you play the more you see in the game and what you overlook. It is the same with Christianity. The more one grows with it, the more we see how far we are from it.

One can be open to 'higher influences' and not have a god belief.

I agree. It is this attraction that prompts us towards pondering and contemplation free of belief.

Are not 'false gods' an opinion? Many mystics in traditions other than christian have expressed in a similar manner to Simone.

It is verified for her and other mystics that false Gods though attractive do not satisfy these deeper needs of the heart. This is why people that have made money their god sometimes jump out of windows.

A higher good does not prerequisite a god. Metta in Buddhism stands as an example.

Buddha never denied the existence of God but rather asserted that being caught up in debate on this causes more harm than good since the problem isn't with the higher but within us. So rather than argue about God the Buddhist strives to get his own house in order.

I would say that the origin of Metta is not animal in nature but is normal for higher life that a person can evolve towards.

[bernee51]

Bernee

Perhaps atheist extremism would be a better fit for those promoting a view of atheism bordering on the irrational

OK since they are not carrying guns.

Nor going into battle with "God is with us' on their buckles or shouting 'Allahu akbar'

I'll leave it to you to tell Rusty he is misguided and not really a Christian.

It is natural for a pre-Christian to respect how far they are from Christianity. If it weren't the case it wouldn't be needed. There is no offense in this.

A person that plays bad chess doesn't appreciate how good a grandmaster is. The better you play the more you see in the game and what you overlook. It is the same with Christianity. The more one grows with it, the more we see how far we are from it.

Is this yet another claim to 'true' christianity?

Are not 'false gods' an opinion? Many mystics in traditions other than christian have expressed in a similar manner to Simone.

It is verified for her and other mystics that false Gods though attractive do not satisfy these deeper needs of the heart.

That does not address the issue that mystics of other traditions did indeed have their 'deeper needs of the heart' realized. Are there many 'true' gods - or one true god and many true paths?

This is why people that have made money their god sometimes jump out of windows.

Or drunk kool-aid cocktails

[Nick_A]

Bernee

Nor going into battle with "God is with us' on their buckles or shouting 'Allahu akbar'

The complete degeneration of the essence of religion into idolatry and serving egotism.

Is this yet another claim to 'true' christianity?

Yes. Rumi understood.

Fool’s gold exists because there is real gold. –Rumi

.


The many facets of Christendom exist because there is one Christianity.

That does not address the issue that mystics of other traditions did indeed have their 'deeper needs of the heart' realized. Are there many 'true' gods - or one true god and many true paths?

As I understand it, there are several paths that lead to the "way." People have different temperaments and each of the legit paths initiated by a conscious source was suited for these types. So there is one way but several paths that lead to the way.

Or drunk kool-aid cocktails

Yes we've invented many forms of self deception that ingeniously allow us to both create new forms it and deal with them even with kool-aid cocktails
.