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.

[McCulloch]

I think that you missed the point. Atheism is the belief that there is no God or no gods. Or, for some, the lack of belief in God or gods.

Militant atheism would be that plus some factor that makes it militant. I would suggest that the necessary factor would be the belief that faith in such a God is dangerous and must be removed from society.

[Nick_A]

Hi PC1

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

Militant atheism is illogical so you can only find emotional reasons and tenants for such a mindset. 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.

Say for example that you are hungry and I say that there is food in the refrigerator. You can deny there is any food and demand proof that there is food before condescending to look in the fridge or you can look in the fridge for yourself. You can even deny that you are hungry to avoid having to look in the fridge for yourself.

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

Where an agnostic can be open minded, a militant atheist must be emotionally dogmatic in their emotional denial that comprises their skepticism.

Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. This assumes that the help from above for acquiring a greater human perspective is illusory. Simone Weil, a former communist, retorted that revolution is the opiate of the masses. In contrast she asserts that the belief in collective human psychological progress without the help of grace is illusory.

The closed minded militant atheist, rather than becoming open to the question, will just deny and demand proof. The agnostic has the chance to consider both perspectives from their own personal experience rather than just through theoretical argument and learn the truth for themselves.

Militant atheism denies the proof of the heart and justifies this denial by rationalizing what it cannot understand. Where the agnostic can have the freedom to allow the heart to mature and gradually discriminate between the wheat and tares within it, The militant denial of the atheist prevents such experiential growth.

IMO as a #2, you have openings for understanding the militant atheist lacks.

[McCulloch]

Say for example that you are hungry and I say that there is food in the refrigerator. You can deny there is any food and demand proof that there is food before condescending to look in the fridge or you can look in the fridge for yourself. You can even deny that you are hungry to avoid having to look in the fridge for yourself.

There's food in the fridge, but it is a magic fridge that no one can see. If you believe that you are full, then you will be full, in this life and in the life beyond.

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

I see that there must be more than dogmatism and certainty of one's position to merit the label of militant. Would it be fair to label all Christians who are sure that Jesus is God as militant Christians?

Where an agnostic can be open minded, a militant atheist must be emotionally dogmatic in their emotional denial that comprises their skepticism.

Yes, I've seen that. There are some atheists, and I'll call them militant, who damage their own credibility by overstating their case. Christopher Hitchens who subtitled one of his books How Religion Poisons Everything comes to mind.

[Nick_A]

Say for example that you are hungry and I say that there is food in the refrigerator. You can deny there is any food and demand proof that there is food before condescending to look in the fridge or you can look in the fridge for yourself. You can even deny that you are hungry to avoid having to look in the fridge for yourself.

There's food in the fridge, but it is a magic fridge that no one can see. If you believe that you are full, then you will be full, in this life and in the life beyond.

"Do You wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself"
-ABBA EVAGRIUS, FOURTH CENTURY

The fridge in this case is you. If you believe you are imaginary then you won't look inside. I agree that if you believe you are full you may appear to feel full. The question becomes when this happens: what are we full of?

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

I see that there must be more than dogmatism and certainty of one's position to merit the label of militant. Would it be fair to label all Christians who are sure that Jesus is God as militant Christians?[/quote]

You defined militance as: "Militant atheism would be that plus some factor that makes it militant. I would suggest that the necessary factor would be the belief that faith in such a God is dangerous and must be removed from society."

Secular religion does the same thing in bringing God concepts down to a societal level and this concept must be the dominant force in society teloing people what to do. They are equally militant.

The sensible approach assumes that the necessary balance between obligations and rights that sustains a free society cannot be achieved through humanistic aims simply because we are as we are. The religious influence that helps people to grow on the inside that they can rise in their understanding and come to appreciate and participate in the collective value of the balance between obligations and rights doesn't happen because of idolatry. 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. It begins with humility.

Where an agnostic can be open minded, a militant atheist must be emotionally dogmatic in their emotional denial that comprises their skepticism.

Yes, I've seen that. There are some atheists, and I'll call them militant, who damage their own credibility by overstating their case. Christopher Hitchens who subtitled one of his books How Religion Poisons Everything comes to mind.[/quote]

Well that's a start.

[McCulloch]

The fridge in this case is you. If you believe you are imaginary then you won't look inside. I agree that if you believe you are full you may appear to feel full. The question becomes when this happens: what are we full of?

You're confusing the metaphor. Am I the hungry guy or the fridge? Tell a hungry man that he is a fridge and the food is inside him. Right!

You defined militance as: "Militant atheism would be that plus some factor that makes it militant. I would suggest that the necessary factor would be the belief that faith in such a God is dangerous and must be removed from society."

Secular religion does the same thing in bringing God concepts down to a societal level and this concept must be the dominant force in society telling people what to do. They are equally militant.

There is no such thing as secular religion. You have been listening too much to the militant Christians. Secularism is the concept that religion should be kept out of the public sphere. This is an important feature of modern multicultural societies. Everyone has the right to practice their own religion (secularism is not established atheism) but our public institutions should be free of religion. This is a sensible approach in a multicultural society where there is no consensus on which religion should be represented in public.

[Nick_A]

The fridge in this case is you. If you believe you are imaginary then you won't look inside. I agree that if you believe you are full you may appear to feel full. The question becomes when this happens: what are we full of?

You're confusing the metaphor. Am I the hungry guy or the fridge? Tell a hungry man that he is a fridge and the food is inside him. Right!

Yes. In spiritual matters or the development of Man's being, we seek to satisfy our hunger for meaning from the external world without realizing that it is the chaos of our inner world that denies the comprehension of meaning and purpose. So the fridge is in us as well as in the external world.

You defined militance as: "Militant atheism would be that plus some factor that makes it militant. I would suggest that the necessary factor would be the belief that faith in such a God is dangerous and must be removed from society."

Secular religion does the same thing in bringing God concepts down to a societal level and this concept must be the dominant force in society telling people what to do. They are equally militant.

There is no such thing as secular religion. You have been listening too much to the militant Christians. Secularism is the concept that religion should be kept out of the public sphere. This is an important feature of modern multicultural societies. Everyone has the right to practice their own religion (secularism is not established atheism) but our public institutions should be free of religion. This is a sensible approach in a multicultural society where there is no consensus on which religion should be represented in public.

[/quote]

Unfortunately, there are no deep debates or discussions on this. It is considered somehow as accepted. Christendom or what you know as Christianity, is just impotent secularized Christianity. This is an example of secularized religion.

However, has anyone ever debated Simone Weil's "The Need for Roots?" Wiki gives a superficial summary of the basics but have simiar ideas referring to the need for the spiritual element in society ever been debated? Who is open and broad minded enough to do it in these days of multicultural secularism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Wei ... _for_Roots

Any student of social philosophy that would include Simone's contribution in a paper would probably get an A for not spitting out the usual copied papers. But only a few are aware of such ideas since politics and secular religion are on the same level that deny the needs of the soul for the sake of the Collective.

[bernee51]

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

I would suggest that this is not limited to 'militant' atheists but is symbolic of the human condition.

Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses.

I would have thought you would have agreed with him. In another thread you have implied much the same thing about religiosity - not allowing an awakening.

This assumes that the help from above for acquiring a greater human perspective is illusory.

There is no reason to assume it is not (illusory). Help from within, however, is a different matter.

Simone Weil, a former communist, retorted that revolution is the opiate of the masses. In contrast she asserts that the belief in collective human psychological progress without the help of grace is illusory.

I would have used the word 'spirit' in place of grace - but you know that. There is no choice for us but to have an interchange with spirit. It is part and parcel of the structure and process of our existence.

The closed minded militant atheist, rather than becoming open to the question, will just deny and demand proof. The agnostic has the chance to consider both perspectives from their own personal experience rather than just through theoretical argument and learn the truth for themselves.

So you are attributing intransigence to militancy. Is this one of the 5-10 tenets asked for in the OP?

Militant atheism denies the proof of the heart and justifies this denial by rationalizing what it cannot understand.

What of those who have sought 'proof of the heart' and still arrive at an atheist POV. Who are you to claim that their 'proof of the heart' is insufficient because it does not agree with yours?

Where the agnostic can have the freedom to allow the heart to mature and gradually discriminate between the wheat and tares within it, The militant denial of the atheist prevents such experiential growth.

And of the atheist who has 'allowed the heart to mature' and the discrimination arrives at a point of non belief in "creator deities interested enough in their creation to interfere" you say what?

[Nick_A]

I would suggest that this is not limited to 'militant' atheists but is symbolic of the human condition.

True but "militant" implies an additional fervor.

I would have thought you would have agreed with him. In another thread you have implied much the same thing about religiosity - not allowing an awakening.

Religion is another of these words that are relative. Secular religions produce secular results that follow nature's cycles such as war and peace. Living religion that is still connected to its higher source serve to minimize the adverse consequences of nature's cycles.

So you are attributing intransigence to militancy. Is this one of the 5-10 tenets asked for in the OP?

If one refuses to be open it is easy to become militant. It really is not a matter of compromise that intransigence suggests but the refusal to become open to higher influences.

What of those who have sought 'proof of the heart' and still arrive at an atheist POV. Who are you to claim that their 'proof of the heart' is insufficient because it does not agree with yours?

I somehow should have specified proof of the heart that connects it with higher emotion. Love as we know it is often sufficient proof of the heart.

And of the atheist who has 'allowed the heart to mature' and the discrimination arrives at a point of non belief in "creator deities interested enough in their creation to interfere" you say what?

It depends. If the person is like Simone refusing to give their love to false Gods, I agree. If the person is just denying the existence of a higher good that we have the potential to consciously grasp, I would think them misguided.

[bernee51]

I would suggest that this is not limited to 'militant' atheists but is symbolic of the human condition.

True but "militant" implies an additional fervor.

Militant, however, is virtually always used to describe a pattern of behavior 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

I would have thought you would have agreed with him. In another thread you have implied much the same thing about religiosity - not allowing an awakening.

Religion is another of these words that are relative. Secular religions produce secular results that follow nature's cycles such as war and peace. Living religion that is still connected to its higher source serve to minimize the adverse consequences of nature's cycles.

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

So you are attributing intransigence to militancy. Is this one of the 5-10 tenets asked for in the OP?

If one refuses to be open it is easy to become militant. It really is not a matter of compromise that intransigence suggests but the refusal to become open to higher influences.

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

And of the atheist who has 'allowed the heart to mature' and the discrimination arrives at a point of non belief in "creator deities interested enough in their creation to interfere" you say what?

It depends. If the person is like Simone refusing to give their love to false Gods, I agree.

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

If the person is just denying the existence of a higher good that we have the potential to consciously grasp, I would think them misguided.

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