What is Militant Atheism?

[bernee51]

In another thread a poster wrote: "Militant atheists are stealing people's hope, ..."

I have never been able to find out precisely what militant atheism is. I only know that people are described as a militant atheists if they dare to express sentiments that fail to show the deferential submissiveness traditionally accorded to religion, religious beliefs, and religious believers. Whenever a minority (which is often despised by members of a majority) tries to stand up and assert its equal dignity and rights, some members of the privileged majority will react with horror at the rudeness and intolerance. They are so accustomed to be treated as special that any attempt to deny this is perceived as a terrible insult.

Perhaps this attitude is what leads to so much of the arrogant and condescending accusations which many theists keep repeating about non-believers - all of which have been leveled, at one time or another, at atheists on this forum: we can't be moral, we can't having meaning in life, we can't appreciate love or beauty, we have empty holes in our lives, etc. It would seem such accusations are born out of fear. It allows the one making the accusation feel better about themselves because at least they don't have such a horrible existence like those poor atheists.

So is an atheist militant purely because they dare to question the belief systems that have long felt they hold a position of privilege?

[bernee51]

Someone who saw religions as a controlling feature of society which they wanted to destroy in order that their ideology could dominate. Certain totalitarian regimes of the 20th century come to mind.

So..........militant atheist

By this definition Hitler was a militant christian.

[MikeH]

Someone who saw religions as a controlling feature of society which they wanted to destroy in order that their ideology could dominate. Certain totalitarian regimes of the 20th century come to mind.

So..........militant atheist

By this definition Hitler was a militant christian.

Oh really? I wasn't aware that Hitler's goal was for Christianity to dominate. Please, since you've already broken Godwin's law, share with us how you came to this conclusion.

Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953)

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)


10th October, 1941, midday
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)


14th October, 1941, midday
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity <is> the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)


19th October, 1941, night

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."


21st October, 1941, midday

"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
"The decisive falsification of Jesus' <who he asserts many times was never a Jew> doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)


13th December, 1941, midnight

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe transubstantiation>....
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)


14th December, 1941, midday

"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)


9th April, 1942, dinner

"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)


27th February, 1942, midday

"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)

[bernee51]

Someone who saw religions as a controlling feature of society which they wanted to destroy in order that their ideology could dominate. Certain totalitarian regimes of the 20th century come to mind.

So..........militant atheist

By this definition Hitler was a militant christian.

Oh really? I wasn't aware that Hitler's goal was for Christianity to dominate. Please, since you've already broken Godwin's law, share with us how you came to this conclusion.

The self claimed atheists were out to spread communism - not atheism, although it was encouraged as long as it was of any use. To that end Stalin also supported the continuation of the Orthodox church - where it suited him.

Hitler - a self claimed christian - was spreading National Socialism whilst ensuring christianity was maintained - with the full support of the Vatican. Godwin's law is still intact - it is a valid comparison.

And I can provide (but what is the use they have been provided before) just as many Hitler quotes that show his support of the christian system - as long as it helped his primary aims.

[MikeH]

The self claimed atheists were out to spread communism - not atheism, although it was encouraged as long as it was of any use. To that end Stalin also supported the continuation of the Orthodox church - where it suited him.

Hitler - a self claimed christian - was spreading National Socialism whilst ensuring christianity was maintained - with the full support of the Vatican. Godwin's law is still intact - it is a valid comparison.

And I can provide (but what is the use they have been provided before) just as many Hitler quotes that show his support of the christian system - as long as it helped his primary aims.

Except that the quotes you will provide for Hitler are public speeches and writings, while mine are from private conversations (check the source). So will you take the public words of a known propagandist and liar over private conversations just because it fits your argument? Is it still your position that militant atheism is not even possible?

[Darren]

Is it still your position that militant atheism is not even possible?

Hey MikeH, I just wanted to mention that I don't think it is possible. Mainly, this is because 'atheism', unlike 'catholocism', doesn't tie people together. There is a language problem here that is tough for me to define, but an example of what would be like 'atheism' would be, um, homo-sapien-ism. See - nothing to tie that group together.

If you take a child of christian parents, and raise him without religion, an atheist he will be, until he decides to seek and believe in one god or another. Now, even though he is an atheist, nothing necessarily ties him to me. It is not a club with a belief - it is a lack of belief.

I was tempted to make the comparison with the 'doesn't collect stamps' hobby, but it has a bit of a mocking tone. If you can see past that tone, you might see why I think it is wrong to suggest that people could get militant about it. You may have a militant madman who is an atheist, but it is tough to see how a disinterest in collecting stamps could produce a cause to get militant about.

[Goat]

The self claimed atheists were out to spread communism - not atheism, although it was encouraged as long as it was of any use. To that end Stalin also supported the continuation of the Orthodox church - where it suited him.

Hitler - a self claimed christian - was spreading National Socialism whilst ensuring christianity was maintained - with the full support of the Vatican. Godwin's law is still intact - it is a valid comparison.

And I can provide (but what is the use they have been provided before) just as many Hitler quotes that show his support of the christian system - as long as it helped his primary aims.

Except that the quotes you will provide for Hitler are public speeches and writings, while mine are from private conversations (check the source). So will you take the public words of a known propagandist and liar over private conversations just because it fits your argument? Is it still your position that militant atheism is not even possible?

The problem with the 'private sources' is they went through the 'filter' of a very anti-Christian general after Hitlers death, and the stenographers specifically said they do not stand by what was published.

[MikeH]

Hey MikeH, I just wanted to mention that I don't think it is possible. Mainly, this is because 'atheism', unlike 'catholocism', doesn't tie people together.

Huh? How can this be?

There are atheist organizations, atheist symbols, and atheist message boards. There's even an ad that runs at the bottom of this site for "the largest atheist community on the web." Any common trait can unite people, and can lead to militant activity. Are you seriously saying that it is impossible for there to be, and that there has never been in the history of the world, even one atheist who hates religion so much that they have taken violent action or rhetoric against the religious????

[Darren]

Hey MikeH, I just wanted to mention that I don't think it is possible. Mainly, this is because 'atheism', unlike 'catholocism', doesn't tie people together.

Huh? How can this be?

There are atheist organizations, atheist symbols, and atheist message boards. There's even an ad that runs at the bottom of this site for "the largest atheist community on the web." Any common trait can unite people, and can lead to militant activity. Are you seriously saying that it is impossible for there to be, and that there has never been in the history of the world, even one atheist who hates religion so much that they have taken violent action or rhetoric against the religious????

They don't gang up and move because they don't believe in god, they may well get together, hate a church and burn it down, but that is due to an active dislike of the church, not due to their (passive) lack of belief in a god.

[MikeH]

They don't gang up and move because they don't believe in god, they may well get together, hate a church and burn it down, but that is due to an active dislike of the church, not due to their (passive) lack of belief in a god.

This still seems to be very similar to what religious militants say to excuse the actions of extremists. By this definition I could argue that Westboro Baptist Church are not militant Christians, and that their actions do not come from their belief in God, but in their active hatred of gays. But I will not argue this. They are militant Christians, and they need to be shown as such. We all need to raise the bar of honesty, call out all who try to use force or intimidation, and fight for everybody's freedom - even those who we do not agree with.

[Darren]

They don't gang up and move because they don't believe in god, they may well get together, hate a church and burn it down, but that is due to an active dislike of the church, not due to their (passive) lack of belief in a god.

This still seems to be very similar to what religious militants say to excuse the actions of extremists. By this definition I could argue that Westboro Baptist Church are not militant Christians, and that their actions do not come from their belief in God, but in their active hatred of gays. But I will not argue this. They are militant Christians, and they need to be shown as such. We all need to raise the bar of honesty, call out all who try to use force or intimidation, and fight for everybody's freedom - even those who we do not agree with.

I don't think that they are militant christians - calling them that makes christianity look bad (and that is some challenge). They are criminal, and bigoted, but we don't mention that they are all white do we? It is because their colour is not pertinent.